Issued  October  10.  1910. 

.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY.— BULLETIN  125,  PART  1. 

A.  IX  MELVIN,  CHIEF  OP  BUREAU. 


GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES 
9  ~~~     OF  THE  CESTODE  GENUS  MULTICEPS. 


I.   HISTORICAL  REVIEW. 


BY 

MAURICE  C.  HALL, 

Junior  Zoologist,  Zoological  Diri 


L  J  E  r : 

WASHINGTON : 

GOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE. 
1910. 


-      N  X 


THE  BUREAU   OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY. 


r.hi.f:  A.  D.  MEL  YIN. 

Assistant  Chief:  A.  M.  FARRINGTON. 

Cfiiif  CJcrl-:  CHARLES  ('.  CARROLL. 

•al  Husbandry  Division:  GEORGE  M.  ROMMEL,  chief. 
Biocht.;iir  ftirision:  M.  DORSET,  chief. 
Dairy  D^qion:  B.  II .  RAWL,  chief. 
Inspection  Division:  RICE  P.  STEDDOM,  chief;  MORRIS  WOODEN,  R.  A.  RAMSAY,  and 

ALBERT  E.  I'I;-ITXKE,  associate  chiefs. 
Pathological  Division:  JOHN  R.  MOHLER,  chief. 
Quarcmli/tc  ]>irisiori*  RICHARD  W.  Jin  KMAN,  chief. 
Zoological  Division:  B.  H.  RANSOM,  chief. 

iment  Station:  E.  (  .  SCHROEDER,  superintendent. 
Editor:  JAMES  M.  PICKI  • 


/.OOLOCICAI,    DIVISION. 

Cl/uf:   I!.    II.   HANSOM. 

AKX/xtflnl  Zonlnfj'ixt:    Al.HKRT  .1 1.VSSA  I.I.. 

Junior  Zoologists.    HAHIIY  \\'.  (IHAYHII,!.,  M.-vruici-;  ('.  HALL,  HOWARD  <'KA\VI.I:Y,  and 
WINTHROP  D.  FOSTER. 


Issued  October  10,  1910. 

U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY.— BULLETIN  125,  PART  1. 

A.  D.  MELVIN,  CHIEF  OF  BUREAU. 


THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES 
OF  THE  CESTODE  GENUS  MULTICEPS. 


I.   HISTORICAL  REVIEW. 


BY 

MAURICE  C.  HALL, 

Junior  Zoologist,  Zoological  Division. 


WASHINGTON: 
GOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE. 

1910. 


LETTER    OF    TRANSMITTAL. 


U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  June  16, 1910. 

SIR:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith,  and  to  recommend  for 
publication  as  a  bulletin,  the  accompanying  manuscript  entitled 
"The  Gid  Parasite  and  Allied  Species  of  the  Cestode  Genus  Multiceps. 
Part  1.  Historical  review,"  by  Maurice  C.  Hall,  of  the  Zoological 
Division  of  this  Bureau. 

Mr.  Hall  has  been  making  a  most  comprehensive  study  of  gid,  and 
his  investigations  will  furnish  an  important  contribution  to  our  knowl- 
edge of  this  deadly  disease  of  sheep,  which  has  only  in  recent  years 
been  recognized  as  established  in  the  United  States,  the  first  definite 
evidence  of  its  presence  as  an  enzootic  having  been  published  in  1905 
in  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  Bulletin  66. 

It  is  intended  to  publish  later,  as  succeeding  parts  of  the  present 
bulletin,  the  results  of  Mr.  Hall's  investigations,  now  in  progress,  con- 
cerning the  morphology  and  life  histories  of  the  parasites  in  question, 
as  well  as  the  symptomatology,  treatment,  prophylaxis,  etc.,  of  gid. 

Respectfully, 

A.  D.  MELVIN, 

Chief  of  Bureau. 
Hon.  JAMES  WILSON, 

Secretary  of  Agriculture. 


CONTENTS. 


I'age. 

Introduction 5 

Multiceps  multiceps 6 

Historical  sketch 6 

Gid  in  the  United  States 16 

Gid  in  Canada 29 

The  hosts  and  occurrences  of  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps 30 

The  occurrences  of  the  adult  Multiceps  multiceps 41 

Economic  importance  of  gid 42 

Alleged  causes  of  gid 46 

Names  applied  to  gid  and  giddy  animals 47 

Common  names  of  the  gid  parasite 49 

Synonymy 50 

Multiceps  serialis 56 

Historical  sketch 56 

The  hosts  and  occurrences  of  the  larval  Multiceps  serialis 58 

The  occurrences  of  the  adult  Multiceps  serialis 03 

Economic  importance 64 

Synonymy 65 

Multiceps  lemuris 66 

Historical  sketch 66 

Synonymy 66 

Multiceps  polytubcrculosus 67 

Historical  sketch 67 

Synonymy 67 

Multiceps  spalacis 67 

Historical  sketch 67 

Synonymy 67 

Cysticercus  botryoidcs 68 

Historical  sketch 68 

Synonymy 68 

Acephalocystis  ovis  tragclaphi 68 

Historical  sketch 68 

Synonymy 68 


ILLUSTRATION. 


FIG.  1. — Map  of  Montana,  showing  distribution  of  gid  in  sheep. 


THE  GID  PARASITE   AND  ALLIED    SPECIES  OF  THE 
CESTODE  GENUS  MULTICEPS. 


PART  I.  HISTORICAL  REVIEW. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Coenurus  is  the  name  commonly  applied  to  a  larval  cestode  group 
of  considerable  importance  to  helminthologists  from  a  historical  and 
scientific  standpoint,  for  it  was  with  one  of  its  species,  commonly 
referred  to  as  Cc&nurus  cerebralis,  that  Steenstrup's  theory  of  the 
alternation  of  generations  was  first  completely  demonstrated  for 
cestodes  by  Kuchenmeister,  who,  in  1853,  produced  the  adult  cestode 
or  tapeworm  in  the  primary  host  by  feeding  the  larval  form  to  the 
dog,  and  produced  the  larval  cestode  or  bladderworm  in  the  secondary 
host  by  feeding  the  eggs  of  the  adult  tapeworm  to  the  sheep.  This 
work  of  Kuchenmeister's  and  that  of  Von  Siebold  along  the  same  line 
is  taken  by  Braun  (1894a),a  in  his  classic  work  on  cestodes,  as  marking 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  and  latest  period  in  helminthology,  dating 
from  1851. 

This  same  species,  C.  cerebralis,  is  of  considerable  economic  interest 
to  veterinarians  and  stock  raisers,  and  especially  to  sheepmen,  as 
being  the  cause  of  the  disease  commonly  known  among  English- 
speaking  people  as  gid. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  disease  caused  by  this  parasite,  as  well 
as  something  of  its  nature,  was  probably  known  in  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries  B.  C.,  and  that  the  parasite  itself  was  observed  at  least 
as  early  as  1634  A.  D.,  its  parasitic  nature  known  since  1780,  and  its 
life  history  known  for  over  half  a  century,  there  are  still  some  mistaken 
popular  ideas  about  it,  and  also  some  errors,  disagreements,  and  uncer- 
tainties in  the  writings  of  scientists  as  to  the  specific  identity  of  this 
and  various  other  forms  of  coanurus  that  have  been  described  from 
different  hosts,  and  also  as  to  the  correctness  with  which  certain  par- 

a  Bibliographic  citations  refer,  wherever  possible,  to  Stiles  and  Hassall's  (1902-19 — ) 
Index-Catalogue  of  Medical  and  Veterinary  Zoology,  Authors,  Bureau  of  Animal  Indus- 
try Bulletin  39,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.  References  not  in  Bul- 
letin 39  are  indicated  by  the  use  of  Greek  letters  and  will  be  covered  in  a  supplemental 
bibliography,,  to  be  published  later. 

5 


6  THE   GID   PARASITE   AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

asites  are  listed  from  certain  hosts.  The  writer  has  endeavored  to 
correct  some  of  these  errors  in  this  paper,  and  it  is  proposed  in  a  series 
of  papers  to  give  a  comprehensive  account  of  the  cestodes  having  a 
coenurus  larva. 

The  first  form  to  be  considered  is  the  brain  bladderworm  of  sheep, 
usually  known  as  Cwnurus  cerebralis,  but  which,  as  will  be  shown, 
should  be  known  by  the  name  Multiceps  multiceps,  proposed  here  for 
the  first  time.  In  this  article  the  word  "  cosnurus  "  will  not  usually  be 
capitalized ;  it  will  be  used  merely  as  the  name  of  a  larval  stage,  like 
the  words  " cysticercus,"  "cercaria,"  "leptocephalus,"  etc.  It  is  not 
entitled  to  be  used  as  a  generic  or  subgeneric  name,  owing  to  the  pri- 
ority of  Multiceps,  but  as  it  is  still  much  more  commonly  used  in  this 
way  than  Multiceps,  and  as  reference  must  be  constantly  made  to 
quotations  where  it  is  used  in  combination  with  some  specific  name, 
especially  in  the  form  Ccenurus  cerebralis,  it  will  often  be  clearer  to 
use  this  form  instead  of  the  correct  one. 

MULTICEPS  MULTICEPS. 
HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 

Braun  (1894a)  makes  his  first  period  in  helminthology  cover  the 
work  of  antiquity  and  the  middle  ages  up  to  1600,  and  in  the  litera- 
ture of  this  period,  relatively  barren  from  a  scientific  standpoint, 
almost  no  references  are  to  be  found  that  can  be  construed  as  refer- 
ring to  gid.  However,  a  disease  like  gid,  involving,  as  it  does,  a  deli- 
cate arrangement  of  alternating  hosts,  must  have  existed  long  before 
primitive  man  passed  from  the  hunting  to  the  pastoral  stage.  It  is 
not  the  sort  of  disease  to  arise  by  rapid  facultative  adjustment 
or  out-of-hand  adaptation.  The  very  fact  that  gid  exists  to-day  is 
proof  enough  in  a  disease  of  this  sort  that  it  existed  thousands  of 
years  ago.  Undoubtedly,  in  the  days  when  the  ancestral  dog  pur- 
sued the  wild  sheep,  the  nice  adaptation  of  a  brain  parasite  that  would 
interfere  with  muscular  activity  and  blunt  the  sense  perceptions, 
making  flight  and  escape  difficult,  must  have  furnished  a  striking 
example  of  a  life  habit  well  calculated  to  perpetuate  a  parasite,  but  it 
could  scarcely  have  been  more  satisfactory  than  the  new  arrange- 
ment introduced  by  man  when  he  domesticated  the  sheep  and  put 
its  former  enemy,  the  dog,  in  charge  of  it  to  run  over  its  pastures 
as  a  constant  companion  and  to  eat  the  discarded  heads  and  diseased 
brains  of  giddy  sheep — an  enemy  still. 

A  prolonged  search  of  ancient  literature  would  no  doubt  show  some 
references  which  might  readily  be  taken  as  descriptions  of  gid.  The 
symptoms  are  so  striking  that  pastoral  peoples,  like  the  Arabs,  Jews, 
and  Greeks,  must  have  noted  and  described  them ;  but  finding  such 
references  involves  a  tedious  search  and  more  lime  than  ran  profitably 
be  spent  on  the  work. 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH   OF   MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  7 

One  such  reference  occurs  in  Kuhn's  edition  of  Hippocrates 
(1825«),  who  is  believed  to  have  lived  460  to  375  B.  C.  The  follow- 
ing is  quoted  from  Adams's  translation  of  Hippocrates  (1886or), 
describing  excess  of  fluids  on  the  brain  in  epilepsy: 

This  you  may  ascertain  in  particular,  from  beasts  of  the  flock  [i.  e. ,  sheep]  which  are 
seized  with  this  disease,  and  more  especially  goats,  for  they  are  most  frequently 
attacked  with  it.  If  you  will  cut  open  the  head  you  will  find  the  brain  humid,  full 
of  sweat,  and  having  a  bad  smell. 

It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  make  a  positive  statement  of  fact  on 
anything  less  than  complete  and  accurate  observations.  Obvioush* 
there  was  no  one  in  the  tune  of  Hippocrates  who  could  be  expected  to 
make  and  record  such  observations  in  a  case  of  gid,  and  existing 
editions  of  Hippocrates  are  open  to  the  suspicion  of  having  in  them 
observations  not  properly  referable  to  Hippocrates.  Hence  we  can 
not  say  certainly  that  Hippocrates  actually  saw  cases  of  gid,  but  on 
the  strength  of  the  reference  given,  agreeing  as  it  does  with  the 
certainty  that  gid  among  sheep  must  have  existed  for  ages,  it  is  fair 
to  state  that  Hippocrates  probably  saw  cases  of  gid  four  or  five 
centuries  before  the  Christian  era.  The  fact  that  the  brain  of  sheep 
was  found  full  of  fluid  points,  among  other  things,  to  hydrocephaly, 
which  may  follow  the  invasion  of  the  gid  parasite,  according  to 
Miiller  (1877a),  or  to  the  gid  parasite  itself.  Gid  probably  was  not 
rare  in  those  days  when  sheep  were  everywhere  tended  by  dogs  and 
the  prophylaxis  of  the  disease  was  undreamed  of.  The  "bad  smell" 
may  have  been  due  to  delay  in  post-mortem  examination,  to  hydro- 
cephalus  purulentus  as  a  sequel  of  gid,  or  it  may  easily  have  been 
noted  hi  the  ccenurus  vesicle,  as  my  own  observations  show  that 
the  coenurus  fluid  serves  as  an  excellent  medium  for  decomposition 
bacteria,  the  odor  of  the  fluid  in  a  graduate  becoming  intolerable  in 
twenty-four  hours  at  ordinary  room  temperature.  Guetebruch 
(1766a),  according  to  Kuchenmeister  (1880a),  states  in  an  article 
on  gid  that  when  perforation  of  the  skull  occurs,  as  it  sometimes 
does  in  gid,  the  brain  decomposes  and  becomes  purulent,  the  brain 
and  bone  marrow  turning  to  water  and  becoming  putrid.  The  writer 
has  never  seen  such  a  case,  but  it  is  evident  that  if  the  perforation 
of  the  skull  were  followed  by  perforation  of  the  skin  as  well,  it 
would  afford  entrance  to  bacteria,  with  possibly  a  result  similar 
to  the  one  given.  Finally,  the  fact  that  these  post-mortem  findings 
are  given  for  sheep  suffering  from  "the  sacred  disease,"  a  term 
covering  epilepsy  and  other  brain  disorders,  would  indicate  the 
possibility  of  gid,  as  the  symptoms  of  nervous  disturbances  are  very 
marked  in  this  disease.  Adams,  the  translator  of  Hippocrates  from 
whom  the  foregoing  quotation  is  taken,  and  himself  a  physician,  refers 
to  the  lines  quoted  as  follows: 

It  is  well  known  that  this  is  also  the  case  with  sheep,  and  that  they  are  subject  to 
the  disease  called  the  sturdy  [i.  e.,  gid],  which  is  indisputably  a  sort  of  epilepsy. 


8  THE   GID   PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

In  the  somewhat  limited  literature  on  helminthology  for  the 
period  from  1600  to  1800,  Braun's  (1894a)  second  period,  the  gid 
parasite  figures  to  a  proportionally  large  and  increasing  extent.  The 
citations  from  this  period  are  given  rather  fully,  as  they  are  in  works 
which  are  not  readily  available  to  many. 

In  the  first  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  Braun's  (1894a)  third 
period,  there  are  numerous  references  to  gid,  and  since  1850  and  the 
work  of  Kuchenmeister,  which  was  done  soon  after,  not  a  year 
has  passed  in  which  few  to  many  notes  on  the  brain  bladderworm, 
its  adult  tapeworm,  or  its  effects,  have  not  appeared.  This  increase 
in  the  amount  of  literature  is  perhaps  concomitant  with  an  increase  in 
number  and  distribution  of  sheep  and  cases  of  gid,  as  well  as  with 
increasing  knowledge  of  the  parasite.  In  general  the  large  amount  of 
literature  is  due  to  the  attractive  combination  of  scientific  and  eco- 
nomic interest  which  has  induced  many  persons  to  publish  notes  on 
the  disease  and  its  parasite  from  one  or  both  standpoints. 

The  early  notes  on  cosnurus  deal  only  with  Ccenurus  cerebralis 
(=  Multiceps  multiceps)  and  especially  with  the  disease  caused  by  it. 
It  was  nearly  two  hundred  years  after  Scultetus  (1672a)  had  seen 
the  first  unmistakable  case  of  gid  that  I  have  found  recorded,  before 
the  first  ccenurus  which  we  may  regard  as  other  than  C.  cerebralis 
was  noted  by  De  Blainville  (1828a).  Scultetus  saw  his  case  in  1634. 

The  first  available  note  published  during  Braun's  (1894a)  second 
period  of  helminthology  dealing  with  C.  cerebralis  is  that  of  Rolfinck 
(1656a)  who,  in  a  work  on  medical  anatomy,  writes  of  vesicles  full  of 
water  and  humor  in  the  third  ventricle  of  sheep  as  the  cause  of  a 
vertigo.  This  may  be  safely  accepted  as  a  reference  to  C.  cerebralis. 
The  description  is  in  general  terms  just  the  one  a  casual  observer 
would  give  of  this  parasite,  as  witness  the  statement  of  a  correspondent 
to  the  veterinary  editor  of  a  periodical  (Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Shepherd's 
Bulletin  1903?-)  to  the  effect  that  he  found  hi  a  sheep's  head  "a  bag 
of  water  which  burst  and  ran  out  when  I  pressed  upon  it." 

The  next  available  article  on  the  subject  of  gid  published  during  this 
period  is  that  of  Wepfer  (1658a).  The  part  relating  to  C.  cerebralis 
gives  at  this  early  date  notes  on  the  characteristic  symptoms  of  the 
disease,  its  pathology,  and  the  morphology  of  the  water  bladder. 
The  disease  is  further  recorded  as  a  frequent  cause  of  death  in  cattle, 
and  the  peasants  are  credited  with  a  form  of  operation  involving 
percussion  and  surprisingly  good  for  that  date. 

Heusinger  (1853a)  quotes  from  a  work  of  Bartholinus  (1667aO, 
not  available  to  me,  a  statement  of  a  species  of  frenzy  and  vertigo 
which  in  1661  attacked  horses,  cattle,  and  sheep,  and  notes  that 
worms  were  found  in  the  heads  of  the  animals  attacked.  These  cases 
may  have  included,  and  very  likely  did  include,  cases  of  gid. 

The  next  available  article  dealing  with  C.  cerebralis  is  that  of 
Scultetus  (1672a),  who  in  a  Latin  treatise  on  surgery  gives  the 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH   OF   MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  9 

description  of  a  case  seen  at  the  earliest  date  at  which  we  have  found 
a  case  recorded.  The  following  is  quoted  from  an  English  translation 
of  the  same  work  (Scultetus,  1674a): 

Observation  X.  Of  a  Vertigo  in  a  Sheep,  proceeding  from  an  Abscess  in  the  Brain. 

In  the  Year  1634,  December  the  24th.  Being  in  the  shop  of  Nicolas  Kite  «  he  made 
mention  of  his  sheep,  among  which  one  was  troubled  with  a  Vertigo,  or  Giddiness, 
the  Germans  call  it  Wirbling:  this  Disease  one  who  dealt  in  sheep  affirmed  to  be  inci- 
dent to  the  fairest  of  the  Flock;  that  hereby  their  whole  Brain  would  be  turned  into 
Water  and  then  they  would  fall  down  dead  on  a  sudden.  The  Chyrurgion  therefore 
commanded  that  one  of  those  sheep  which  was  weakened  with  this  Giddiness,  and 
turning  around,  should  be  killed,  and  sent  me  the  head. 

Scultetus  found  nothing  in  the  ventricle. 

Afterward  I  lifted  up  the  organs  of  smelling  *  *  *  and  on  the  left -side,  between 
the  Brain  and  the  Pia  mater,  I  found  an  abscess,  like  the  Bladder  of  a  Fish,  full  of 
very  clear  water  *  *  *  I  wondered  that  *  *  *  the  sheep  should  not  labour 

under  an  Apoplexy,  or  a  Palsy,  rather  than  a  Vertigo. 

/ 

In  1645  Scultetus  lost  a  sheep  by  the  same  disease,  and  in  the  work 
just  noted  writes: 

I  dissected  the  Head  *  *  *  and  presently  on  the  left-side  as  it  were  of  the 
backward  part  of  the  Head,  under  the  Dura  Mater,  I  found  a  Bag  of  the  thickness  of  a 
Fisches  Blader,  filled  with  Water,  and  little  Worms,  such  as  are  bred  in  Cheese;  for 
it  began  to  putrefie  at  the  bottom.  This  Coated  Tumour  being  bigger  than  a  Hens 
Egg,  had  so  insinuated  itself  into  the  substance  of  the  Brain,  that  it  did  somewhat 
press  upon  the  third  Ventricle.  This  Sheep,  as  the  Shepheard  reports,  turned  herself 
round  about  towards  the  night  &  all  that  day  she  dyed. 

That  gid  was  not  uncommon  in  the  seventeenth  century  is  clear 
from  the  fact  that  Rolfmck  (1656a),  writing  of  vertigo,  refers  to  it 
as  occasionally  (nonnumquam)  caused  by  sacs  of  water  on  the  brain 
in  sheep.  Wepfer  (1658 a)  notes  it  as  a  serious  and  common  disease 
of  cattle  in  Switzerland.  In  the  account  of  Scultetus  (1674a)  it 
appears  that  a  sheep  dealer  recognizes  the  disease  as  one  common 
enough  in  Germany  at  that  time  to  have  a  colloquial  name, 
"Wirbling." 

The  next  reference  to  gid  is  by  Wepfer  (1681  a)  and  is  identical 
with  the  one  already  given,  being  in  a  later  edition  of  the  original 
work  of  1658. 

Kuchenmeister  (1880a)  refers  to  an  article  by  Brunner  (1694or), 
not  available  to  me,  and  quotes  from  it  a  statement  to  the  effect  that 
Brunner  had  dissected  the  head  of  a  giddy  calf,  "vituli  vertiginosi," 
and  in  the  cerebral  substance  had  found  three  hydatids  the  size  of 
pigeon  eggs  and  full  of  limpid  fluid.  Kuchenmeister  takes  this  to 
refer  to  Casnurus  cerebralis,  which  it  obviously  does. 

a The  original  Latin  text  reads  "in  tonstrino  Nicolai  Reutte."  The  translator  has 
translated  not  only  the  text  but  also  the  proper  names,  rendering  the  German  name 
Reutte  by  its  English  equivalent,  Kite. 

6 This  last  statement  should  read  "  towards  the  right,"  the  Latin  word  here  being 
''dextram." 

51674°— Bull.  125,  pt.  1—10 2 


10  THE   GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED   SPECIES. 

The  next  reference  is  in  Wepfer  (1724a).  The  first  two  parts  of 
this  article  consist  of  the  two  parts  making  up  the  edition  of  1658. 
With  these  is  incorporated  a  third  part.  The  same  references  to  gid 
occur  in  the  parts  already  published  and  referred  to  above.  In  the 
new  part  is  a  new  reference  to  hydatids  in  the  brain  of  cattle  as 
being  commonly  believed  to  be  the  cause  of  the  vertigo  accompanying 
them.  He  has  seen  the  peasants  perforate  the  skull  and  extract 
these  in  operations  and  has  also  seen  the  hydatids  demonstrated 
post-mortem. 

Hoffberg  (1759a),  in  a  dissertation  on  Cervus  tarandus,  first 
presented  in  1754,  writes  under  the  heading  of  diseases  of  this 
animal,  of  a  vertigo  or  "Ringsjuka"  causing  the  reindeer  to  turn  in 
circles.  Braun  (1894a)  takes  this  as  a  reference  to  C&nurus  cere- 
bralis,  which  is  a  perfectly  reasonable  assumption.  The  presence 
of  the  parasite  in  the  reindeer,  however,  is  unsupported  by  post- 
mortem evidence  in  this  reference,  and,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  such 
evidence  is  lacking  in  any  subsequent  writings.  The  occurrence  of 
the  gid  parasite  in  the  reindeer  must  therefore  be  considered  doubt- 
ful. It  seems  the  more  doubtful  hi  that  Brehm  (1877^)  states  that 
reindeer  are  attacked  by  the  larva  of  a  gadfly,  specified  by  Moniez 
(1880a)  as  Cephenomya  trompe,  which  penetrates  from  the  nasal 
cavity  to  the  brain,  causing  a  fatal  "Drehkrankheit"  or  gid,  and 
it  may  have  been  this  disease,  apparently  a  common  one,  which 
Hoffberg  saw. 

Kuchenmeister  (1880a)  quotes  from  a  treatise  on  diseases  of 
sheep  by  Guetebruck  (1766^),  already  noted  as  not  available.  In 
this  treatise  it  is  stated  that  the  disease  attacks  lambs  and  yearlings, 
but  not  old  sheep;  that  some  are  born  with  it;  that  a  water  bladder 
forms  on  the  brain  and  may  penetrate  the  skull;  that  when  the 
disease  has  not  gone  too  far  the  flesh  may  be  used  and  the  head  and 
feet  thrown  away  [very  bad  advice],  but  if  the  disease  has  gone  too 
far  the  entire  carcass  should  be  done  away  with.  As  a  method  of 
treatment  he  gives  venesection  on  the  temple  and  nose. 

Stier  (1776a)  has  an  article  on  gid,  of  which  only  the  review  was 
seen  by  me,  the  original  (Stier,  1775a)  not  being  available.  The 
article  takes  up  a  long  list  of  supposed  causes  of  gid  and  rejects 
them,  the  water  bladder  in  the  head  being  held  guilty  of  causing  the 
trouble.  Stier  also  draws  a  careful  distinction  between  actual  gid 
due  to  C.  cerebralis  and  simulated  gid  due  to  the  presence  of  (Estrus 
larvae  in  the  nostrils,  the  latter  presenting  the  symptoms  most  com- 
monly mistaken  for  gid. 

According  to  footnotes  in  Bloch  (1780a),  Hastfer  (I776a)  and 
Ranstler  (1776<*)  have  published  references  to  gid,  but  these  are  not 
available.  Bloch  states  that  they  attributed  gid  to  the  bladder  on 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH   OF   MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  11 

the  brain,  and  that  Ranstler  was  the  first  to  notice  the  small  bodies 
on  the  bladder  and  surmised  that  worms  arose  from  them. 

According  to  Braun  (1894a)  and  others,  the  cestode  nature  of  the 
water  bladder  found  in  the  brain  of  giddy  sheep  was  first  pointed 
out  by  Leske  (1780a)  and  by  Goeze  (1780a),  independently.  These 
references  are  not  available  to  me.  Braun  notes  that  Goeze  recog- 
nized the  cestode  heads  and  considered  them  as  the  embryos  of  the 
bladderworms  which  are  found  in  the  omentum  and  liver  of  sheep 
and  swine.  He  also  notes  that  Leske  found  Tsenia  multiceps 
(=Coenurus  cerebralis),  recognizing  the  characteristic  hooks  and 
suckers.  Kuchenmeister  (1880a)  quotes  part  of  Leske's  article 
showing  that  Leske  made  a  very  careful  study  of  the  morphology 
and  pathology  of  the  parasite.  He  noted  the  heads  invaginate 
and  evaginate  through  the  bladder  wall.  From  the  presence  of  so 
many  of  these  heads,  he  observes  that  we  may  consider  the  animal 
as  many  tapeworms  attached  to  a  common  bladder,  or  as  one  tape- 
worm with  many  heads.  Hence  it  would  be  appropriate  to  call  it 
the  many-headed  tapeworm,  so  he  names  it  Tsenia  multiceps. 

This  last  is  important,  as  it  establishes  the  fact  that  the  correct 
specific  name  of  the  gid  parasite  is  multiceps.  The  preceding  note 
from  Braun  (1894a)  confirms  the  correctness  of  Kiichenmeister's 
(1880a)  quotation,  and  in  addition  Mr.  Sherborn  has  very  kindly 
verified  the  reference  in  the  library  of  the  British  Museum.  It 
appears  from  evidence  to  be  considered  later  that  Leske's  work 
antedates  that  of  Goeze  in  the  same  year.  Were  it  otherwise,  Goeze's 
article  need  not  be  considered,  as,  according  to  Braun's  synopsis, 
he  regarded  the  heads  of  the  parasite  as  the  embryos  of  the  bladder- 
worms  found  in  the  omentum  of  sheep  and  swine,  and  hence  pre- 
sumably proposed  no  new  name  for  the  brain  parasite,  as  there 
would  be  no  reason  for  it  under  the  circumstances  or  a  proper  appli- 
cation for  the  name  had  he  done  so. 

In  a  discussion  of  the  synonymy  of  this  parasite,  Stiles  and  Steven- 
son (1905a)  accept  as  the  specific  name  the  one  proposed  by  Bloch 
(1780a).  Bloch  makes  the  genus  Vermis  vesicularis  for  the  bladder- 
worms,  and  divides  these  into  three  species,  of  which  Vermis  vesicu- 
laris socialis  is  the  brain  bladderworm  of  sheep.  But  though  this 
article  of  Bloch's  bears  the  same  date  as  those  of  Leske  and  Goeze, 
viz,  1780,  Leske's  article  is  nevertheless  older,  and  the  name  pro- 
posed by  him  is  therefore  entitled  to  priority.  This  is  evident  from 
Bloch's  own  article,  which  shows  that  Bloch  had  read  Leske's  article 
of  the  same  year.  Bloch  states  that  Ranstler  first  noticed  the  small 
bodies  on  the  bladder  walls  and  surmised  that  worms  arose  from 
them,  but  that  Leske  and  Goeze  observed  that  these  bodies  were 
actually  bladderworms.  He  states  that  Leske  has  described  them 


12  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

very  completely  and  figured  one  accurately.  Bloch  very  signifi- 
cantly adds  that  Leske  numbered  the  parasites  among  the  tape- 
worms, "Bandwiirmer,"  where,  according  to  Bloch,  they  can  not 
properly  be  reckoned,  for  reasons  already  given  by  him. 

It  is  evident  from  the  last  statement  that  Bloch  had  not  overlooked 
Leske's  Tsenia  multiceps  and  that  he  believed  lie  was  correcting  an 
error  by  proposing  the  name  Vermis  vesicularis  socialis.  However, 
subsequent  work  on  cestode  life  history  has  shown,  the  invalidity 
of  all  classifications  which  place  vesicular  worms  in  a  group  apart 
from  the  strobila  forms  and  has  justified  Leske's  judgment  in  uniting 
them. 

Unfortunately  for  Leske's  name,  Rudolphi  (1810a)  did  not  list  it 
as  a  synonym  of  Ccenurus  cerebralis,  although  he  listed  Leske's 
article  in  his  bibliography.  For  this  reason  Leske's  name  has  been 
very  generally  overlooked,  as  research  in  nomenclature  has  com- 
monly gone  back  through  Rudolphi  to  the  names  quoted  by  him. 
Stiles  and  Stevenson  (1905a)  do  not  give  Leske's  name,  Tsenia  mul- 
ticeps, in  their  table  of  synonymy,  and  in  selecting  the  oldest  name 
available  to  them  have  overlooked  the  rather  obscure  references 
to  Leske's  unavailable  article.  On  calling  Doctor  Stiles's  attention 
to  the  omission  he  pointed  out  to  me  that  Sherborn  (1902a)  refers 
to  Leske  (1780a)  with  the  comment  "No  n.  spp."  I  wrote  Mr. 
Sherborn,  asking  him  to  verify  this  reference,  which  he  very  kindly 
did.  In  a  personal  communication  he  quotes  substantially  the 
part  quoted  by  Kiichenmeister  (1880a),  and  states  that  he  over- 
looked the  name  in  his  former  reading.  Mr.  Sherborn  was  also  good 
enough  to  supply  copies  of  Leske's  illustrations.  These  show  very 
close  observation. 

Following  the  independent  discoveries  by  Goeze  and  Leske  of  the 
cestode  nature  of  the  water  bladder  from  the  brain  of  giddy  sheep, 
there  arose  some  controversy  as  to  which  of  them  was  entitled  to 
priority.  According  to  Braun  (1894a),  Boerner  (1780a)  published 
an  article  discussing  this  point  and  holding  Goeze  as  the  discoverer. 
Subsequently,  Goeze  (1782a)  repudiated  Boerner's  article,  deploring 
the  misunderstanding  between  himself  and  Leske.  He  states  that 
he  has  explained  the  situation  in  a  previous  publication,  the  date  of 
which  is  not  given  and  which  is  unavailable  to  me.  Leske's  priority 
is  conceded  by  Rudolphi  (1808a)  and  by  Davaine  (1860a).  The 
matter  of  priority  here  is  apparently  not  concerned  in  the  nomen- 
clature, and  what  honor  lies  in  priority  of  discovery  belongs  to 
Leske,  so  far  as  the  available  evidence  shows. 

Goeze  (1782a)  divides  his  genus  "  Tsenia,  Bandwurm,"  into  two 
main  classes  as  he  calls  them — Tsenia  visceralis,  the  visceral  tape- 
worms, and  Tsenia  intestinalis,  the  intestinal  tapeworms.  Under 
the  former  he  lists,  among  other  species, ' '  Tsenia  vesicularis  cerebrina  " 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH  OF  MULTICEPS  MULTICEPS.  13 

from  the  brain  of  giddy  sheep,  Multiceps,  the  many-headed,  with 
many  heads  and  bodies  in  a  common  bladder.  And  later  on  he 
states  that  from  the  numerous  heads  one  may  call  the  parasite 
"Vielkopf  (Multiceps)." 

From  the  above,  Stiles  and  Stevenson  (1905a)  have  taken  the 
generic  name  Multiceps.  The  generic  name  used  by  Bloch  (1780a) 
is  evidently  unavailable,  being  composed  of  two  words  and  there- 
fore contrary  to  Article  8  of  the  International  Code  of  Zoological 
Nomenclature,  as  given  by  Stiles  (1905y):  "A  generic  name  must 
consist  of  a  single  word,  simple  or  compound." 

Rudolphi  (1809a)  rejected  Bloch's  Vermis  vesicularis  as  incon- 
gruous and  unsystematic.  Sherborn  (1902a)  is  in  error  in  listing 
Vermis  Bloch  1782  as  a  generic  name.  The  combination  Vermis 
vesicularis  is  always  used,  whether  with  or  without  various  specific 
names  attached. 

As  heretofore  shown  (p.  11),  the  earliest  specific  name  of  the 
parasite  is  that  of  Leske  (1780a)  as  given  in  the  name  Tsenia  multi- 
ceps.  If  the  parasite  in  question  is  to  be  removed  from  the  genus 
Tsenia,  then  the  new  combination  must  use  the  earliest  available 
generic  or  subgeneric  name,  and  since  Goeze's  (1782a)  use  of  the 
scientific  name  Multiceps  is  evidently  generic  or  subgeneric  in  intent, 
being  clearly  used  to  distinguish  the  many-headed  gid  parasite 
from  the  single-headed  cysticercus  forms,  it  is  necessary  to  use  it  in 
the  new  name. 

The  tendency  for  some  time,  and  certainly  a  desirable  tendency, 
has  been  to  break  up  the  large  and  heterogeneous  group  of  animals 
formerly  listed  in  the  genus  Tsenia,  and  to  restrict  the  use  of  this 
name.  The  present  situation  has  already  been  stated  by  Stiles 
(1905y)  as  follows: 

Most  authors  recognize  that  Tsenia  is  to  be  divided  into  the  subgenera  Tsenia,  Multi- 
ceps (i.  e.  Cccnurus),  and  Echinococcus .  Some  authors,  however,  incline  to  recognize 
these  subgenera  as  of  full  generic  rank. 

It  seems  advisable  to  restrict  the  generic  name  Tsenia  to  those 
forms  which  have  a  cysticercus  stage  in  the  life  history.  These 
alone  make  up  a  large  group  with  a  fairly  close  similarity  in  the 
adult  and  larval  stages.  To  retain  in  this  already  large  genus  forms 
having  a  ccenurus  or  echinococcus  larva  seems  unnecessary  and 
undesirable.  Long  ago  Leuckart  (1886d)  wrote: 

The  Coenurus  *  *  *  is  related  to  the  Cysticercus  as  a  compound  to  a  simple 
animal — a  sufficient  reason  for  systematic  zoologists  to  separate  them. 

Generic  rank  is  accorded  to  particular  groups  of  species  which 
in  the  course  of  evolution  have  attained  distinctive  characteristics, 
and  I  see  no  reason  for  withholding  such  rank  from  forms  in  which 
these  distinctive  characteristics  occur  in  the  larva  instead  of  the 
adult.  This  point  is  of  especial  importance  in  a  case  of  this  sort 


14  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

where  the  animal  is  found  in  the  larval  stage  in  the  great  majority 
of  cases,  the  adult  being  seldom  seen  or  recognized.  This  view  is 
in  accord  with  that  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson  (1905a),  from  whom  the 
following  is  quoted : 

Opinions  may  differ  as  to  whether  this  group  [Multiceps]  should  be  given  generic 
or  subgeneric  rank.  Personally  we  see  no  serious  argument  against  recognizing  a 
distinct  genus  on  basis  of  the  "larval"  stage. 

Adopting,  then,  the  genus  Multiceps  Goeze,  1782a,  and  the  species 
multiceps  Leske,  1780a,  as  the  oldest  available  names,  the  correct 
technical  name  of  the  gid  parasite  is  Multiceps  multiceps  (Leske, 
1780a),  Hall,  1910/?. 

From  1782  to  1800,  the  latter  date  marking  the  beginning  of 
Braun's  (1894a)  third  period  in  helminthology,  numerous  observa- 
tions were  made  on  gid,  most  of  them  merely  confirming  the  previous 
work  of  Leske,  Goeze,  and  Bloch,  or  adding  minor  points  of  more  or 
less  importance  and  interest.  By  1800  the  gid  disease  had  been 
observed  certainly  for  over  a  centu^  and  a  half  and  very  likely  for 
twenty-two  centuries,  its  parasite  had  been  named,  described,  and 
figured,  and  had  a  fairly  large  number  of  synonyms  in  addition  to  its 
correct  name,  the  symptoms  and  pathology  of  the  disease  had  been 
given,  together  with  the  symptoms  of  diseases  simulating  gid,  and 
methods  of  operation  had  been  used  which  only  lacked  aseptic  pre- 
cautions to  make  them  equivalent  to  good  modern  methods,  and 
which  were  as  good,  perhaps,  as  most  methods  now  in  actual  use. 

There  remained,  then,  the  work  of  finding  out  the  life  history  and 
basing  on  that  a  rational  prophylaxis.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  dis- 
covery of  this  life  history  by  Kuchemneister  and  Von  Siebold  marks 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  and  last  period  in  helminthology.  The 
contributions  of  the  third  period  to  the  subject  of  gid  are  largely 
wrong  and  unnecessary  theories  of  causation  as  well  as  unsatisfac- 
tory methods  of  treatment.  In  addition,  the  large  amount  of  litera- 
ture in  this  period  lists  the  parasite  from  several  new  hosts,  often 
erroneously,  and  adds  considerably  to  the  synonyms  by  which  it 
is  known.  During  this  period  new  records  of  the  disease  show  a 
widening  geographical  distribution,  and  unsatisfactory  and  unsub- 
stantiated statements  of  its  presence  in  the  United  States  begin  to 
appear  as  early  as  1809.  The  essential  contributions  in  the  literature 
of  this  period  have  been  covered  hi  tables  and  discussions  to  be  given 
later,  and  the  important  events  marking  the  modern  period  of  helmin- 
thology may  next  be  considered. 

Von  Siebold  (1844a)  proposed  as  an  explanation  of  "the  true  nature 
of  bladderworms  that  they  were  cestode  embryos  which  in  attaining 
a  new  host  had  gone  astray,  ending  as  encysted,  incompletely  devel- 
oped forms.  Thus  Cysticercus  fasciolaris  of  the  mouse  was  held  to 
be  such  an  incomplete  sexless  modification  of  Tsenia  crassicollis  of  the 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH  OF   MULTlCEPS  MULTICEPS.  15 

cat.  He  ventured  to  predict  that  in  time  the  various  tapeworms 
would  be  identified  in  their  relation  to  certain  cysticercus,  ccenurus, 
and  echinococcus  forms. 

Dujardin  (1845a)  advanced  a  similar  theory,  and  this  view  or 
modifications  of  it  became  popular  in  scientific  circles  during  the 
five  or  six  years  following  Von  Siebold's  publication.  It  required 
the  experimental  work  of  Von  Siebold  and  Kiichenmeister  hi  1851 
and  1852  to  complete  this  half  truth.  In  the  meantime  the  advo- 
cates of  spontaneous  generation  lost  ground  to  those  who  urged  that 
the  bladderworms  were  altered,  degenerate  cestodes  or  were  incom- 
pletely developed  embryonal  forms. 

A  prominent  champion  of  the  last  theory,  Kiichenmeister  (1851e), 
finally  published  a  note  stating  that  he  had  produced  Tsenia  cras- 
sitipes  [=  T.  crassiceps]  of  the  fox  by  feeding  Cysticercus  pisiformis. 
A  little  later  (Kuchenmeister,  185 Id)  he  corrected  this  statement, 
changing  his  identification  of  the  adult  worm  to  T.  serrata.  This 
marks  the  beginning  of  the  modern  use  of  the  now  general  experi- 
mental feeding  methods  of  determining  life  histories. 

It  remained  for  Von  Siebold  (1852a),  the  supporter  of  the  theory 
of  hydropic  degeneration  of  bladderworms,  to  furnish  additional 
proof  that  his  theory  was  wrong,  for  this  same  year  he  produced  the 
adult  cestode  from  the  gid  bladderworm. 

The  following  year  Kiichenmeister  (1853e)  succeeded  in  experi- 
mentally demonstrating,  for  the  first  time,  the  entire  life  history  of 
a  cestode.  He  fed  Ccenurus  cerebralis  to  a  dog  and  produced  a  tape- 
worm which  he  called  Tsenia  coenurus.  He  then  fed  the  gravid  pro- 
glottids  of  this  tapeworm  to  a  sheep,  and  produced  in  it  the  early 
stages  of  the  coenurus  in  the  brain. 

From  this  experiment  Kuchenmeister  concludes  that  sheep  are 
infected  in  pasture  by  dogs  dropping  proglottids.  Other  animals, 
he  thinks,  may  also  harbor  the  tapeworm,  and  he  claims  this  would 
certainly  be  true  of  wolves  in  Hungary  and  Poland.  This  statement 
is  evidently  mere  assertion,  as  it  is  not  verified  by  the  record  of  such 
a  finding  either  at  the  time  or  subsequently.  At  this  date  no  de- 
scription of  T.  cwnurus  had  been  published  and  its  anatomy  had  not 
been  studied.  Indeed,  the  following  year  Von  Siebold  (1854b) 
states  that  he  finds  the  adult  of  C&nurus  cerebralis  to  be  Txnia 
serrata.  While  the  occurrence  of  T.  ccenurus  in  the  wolf  is  a  proba- 
bility, it  is  nothing  more,  so  far  as  all  available  records  show. 

On  the  evidence  at  hand  Kiichenmeister  formulated  a  set  of  rules 
for  the  prophylaxis  of  gid  which  is  practically  complete.  It  is  as 
follows : 

1.  Feed  dry  food  the  year  round  and  do  not  pasture. 

2.  Once  or  twice  a  year,  purge  the  sheep  and  dogs  in  some  inclosed 
place  to  get  rid  of  tapeworms,  and  burn  the  feces. 


16  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

3.  Do  not,  as  is  usually  done,  throw  the  heads  of  giddy  sheep  to  the 
dogs>  or,  as  Kiichenmeister  after  investigation  finds  to  be  done, 
throw  the  brain  to  the  dogs  before  cooking  the  heads.  Where  there 
are  wolves  one  must  also  bury  or  burn  the  intestines  of  those  that  are 
killed,  and  not  throw  them  away  to  infect  the  fields. 

Such  a  program  is  not  altogether  practicable  or  necessary,  but 
it  only  needs  trifling  amendment  to  bring  it  down  to  date.  Had  it 
been  adhered  to  only  as  regards  keeping  dogs  free  from  tapeworms 
and  heads  of  giddy  sheep  away  from  carnivora  for  the  last  half  cen- 
tury, gid  would  probably  have  been  a  rare  disease  by  this,  for  it  is 
really  one  of  the  most  readily  preventable  of  diseases. 

The  next  year  Kuchenmeister's  work  was  confirmed  by  Von 
Beneden  (1854<r  and  1854/3),  Eschricht  (1854or),  Gurlt — according  to 
Kiichenmeister  (18540-) — Haubner  (1854c  and  1854d),  Leuckart 
(1854c),  and  Roll  (1854^),  all  of  whom  produced  gid  in  sheep  by 
feeding  proglottids  of  Tsenia  ccenurus  sent  them  by  Kiichenmeister. 

As  a  result  of  these  experiments  and  others  performed  soon  after, 
the  important  phases  of  the  life  history  of  the  gid  tapeworm  were 
determined.  It  was  found  that  the  disease  began  with  an  invasion 
period  during  which  the  embryos  were  migrating  through  the  body. 
Then  followed  an  interval  of  apparent  recovery,  during  which  the 
growth  of  the  bladdery  vesicle  was  going  on,  to  the  point  where  the 
heads  became  .developed  and  exsertile.  Here  the  third  and  final 
stage  of  gid  occurred,  the  characteristic  symptoms,  corresponding  to 
particular  locations  of  the  parasite,  becoming  more  aggravated  with 
the  increase  in  growth  and  number  of  heads  until  death  occurred. 

Subsequent  work  has  added  to  our  knowledge  of  the  morphology 
of  the  gid  parasite,  of  the  symptoms,  pathology,  and  simulation  of 
the  disease,  and  of  the  need  of  avoiding  bacterial  infection  in  opera- 
tion. It  has  added  numerous  synonyms  to  the  nomenclature,  and 
recorded,  correctly  or  incorrectly,  new  hosts  and  new  areas  of  infec- 
tion, among  the  latter  the  United  States.  No  essential  points  have 
been  added  to  our  knowledge  of  the  life  history  of  the  parasite  or 
the  prophylaxis  of  the  disease. 

GID   IN    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

The  history  of  gid  in  the  United  States  is,  to  a  remarkable  extent, 
a  matter  of  conjecture.  So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  the 
first  claim  of  its  occurrence  here  was  made  a  century  ago  by  Liv- 
ingston (1809^).  His  claim  is  based  on  very  unsatisfactory  evidence. 
The  following  is  a  rather  full  quotation  of  the  case  : 

The  staggers  or  dizziness,  which  is  also  known  by  various  other  names,  has  occurred 
in  three  instances  in  my  flock,  and  always  attacked  lambs  under  one  year. 
They  were  taken  very  suddenly    *    *    *    by  a  species  of  convulsion,  in  which  the 
neck  was  twisted  to  one  side;  they  lost  the  use  of  their  legs;  when  raised  they  would 


GID   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.  17 

attempt  to  follow  the  flock,  but  turned  round  and  fell;  in  a  few  days  they  were  inca- 
pable even  of  standing,  of  moving  their  heads  or  any  of  their  limbs.  As  they  were 
very  valuable  sheep,  I  paid  particular  attention  to  them;  grass  and  grain  were  given 
them,  which  they  would  readily  eat,  though  they  could  not  move  any  part  but  their 
jaws.  In  this  state  they  lay  a  week  without  motion,  except  of  their  eyes  and  mouth. 
*  *  *  In  about  ten  days  they  could  stand  without  support,  but  fell  when  they 
attempted  to  walk.  *  *  *  At  intervals  they  would  get  better  *  *  *  but  they 
were  always  found  laying  in  some  part  of  the  field  as  if  they  were  dead.  *  *  *  In 
the  course  of  about  six  weeks  they  so  far  recovered  as  to  be  able  to  join  the  flock;  one 
of  them  '  *  *  received  a  blow  *  *  *  that  killed  him;  the  other  two  recov- 
ered, but  very  slowly;  and  even  at  the  end  of  eight  months  they  bore  evident  marks 
of  their  complaint.  This  disorder  is  found,  upon  dissection,  to  be  owing  to  a  bag 
containing  water  within  the  skull.  *  *  *  It  may  *  *  *  be  justly  considered 
as  incurable  by  the  doctor,  but  not,  as  I  have  shown,  by  the  nurse.  *  *  *  But  a 
sheep  must  be  extremely  valuable  to  pay  for  three  months'  constant  attention. 

It  seems  unlikely  that  the  above  cases  were  gid.  Their  occurrence 
in  lambs  fits  in  with  the  theory  of  gid,  and  the  general  symptoms, 
though  not  typical,  might  have  been  gid.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
alternation  between  periods  of  normal  activity  and  entire  collapse 
does  not  look  like  gid,  and  the  gradual  betterment  over  a  period  of 
eight  months  runs  counter  to  the  clinical  history  of  the  disease. 
Moreover,  leaving  out  the  case  of  the  lamb  that  was  killed  while 
recovering,  the  per  cent  of  recoveries  was  100.  Some  writers  have 
claimed  a  spontaneous  recovery  in  2  per  cent  of  all  cases,  but  the 
writer  knows  of  no  evidence  showing  that  any  cases  ever  recover 
when  the  formation  of  the  bladder  is  once  under  way,  and  a  degen- 
eration of  the  parasite  in  its  earlier  stages,  indicated  by  the  brain 
concretions  according  to  Spinola  (1858b),  would  not  give  a  long  period 
of  slow  recovery.  Moreover,  the  three  scattering  cases  given  would 
indicate  a  sporadic  infection,  not  to  be  expected  in  the  case  of  gid. 
Doctor  Mohler  of  this  Bureau  suggests  a  meningitis  as  the  particular 
disease  simulating  gid  in  this  instance,  a  theory  which  seems  to  fit 
the  case  very  well.  The  lack  of  post-mortem  evidence  is  unfortu- 
nate, as  even  typical  cases  of  gid  may  be  simulated  by  other  things. 

Cole  (1847«'),  in  a  book  published  in  Boston,  discussing  "Sturdy, 
or  Water  in  the  Head,"  states: 

A  writer  on  this  subject  says  that  he  knew  a  shepherd  in  Europe  that  saved  nearly 
all  on  which  he  operated  in  this  manner  [by  trocar],  while  he  himself  lost  nearly  all 
on  which  he  operated. 

This  sentence  suggests  that  the  writer  referred  to  had  operated 
outside  of  Europe  and  most  likely  in  the  United  States,  but  this  is, 
of  course,  mere  speculation. 

Later,  a  competent  scientist,  Leidy  (1856a  and  1856b)  records 
Ccenurus  cerebralis  in  a  list  of  parasites  "observed  by  the  author,"  but 
does  not  state  whether  it  was  collected  in  the  United  States. 

McClure  (1870«'),  writing  from  the  United  States,  says  that  he  has 
known  as  many  as  five  ccenuri  to  occur  in  the  brain  of  sheep.  He 
51674°— Bull.  125,  pt  1—10 3 


18  THE   GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

does  not  specify  that  this  observation  was  made  in  the  United  States, 
however,  or  that  the  disease  occurs  here. 

Verrill  (1870d),  writing  of  gid,  says:  "In  this  country  [United 
States]  the  disease  is  far  more  common  than  most  persons  suppose." 
Unfortunately,  he  cites  no  literature  and  no  cases  in  support  of 
this  statement,  and  a  request  for  further  information  has  not  been 
answered. 

Teller  (1879a)  says:  "Hydatid  in  the  brain,  or  turnsick,  although 
reported  from  New  York  and  other  States,  is  a  curiosity  rather  than 
a  scourge."  He  does  not  claim  to  have  seen  the  disease. 

Crutchfield  (1880«r),  of  Hamilton  County,  Tenn.,  says: 

I  have  lost  a  few  sheep  by  "staggers,"  "turnsick,"  etc.,  properly  Hydatid  on  the 
brain,  by  allowing  the  sheep  to  range  upon  low,  wet,  spongy  lands.  By  removing 
them  at  once  the  disease  ceased. 

The  evidence  here  is  not  sufficient  to  enable  one  to  pass  judgment 
on  the  case.  There  is  no  statement  of  symptoms  or  autopsy  find- 
ings, and  the  cessation  of  the  disease  on  removing  the  sheep  from 
low,  wet  ground  might  or  might  not  have  followed  in  the  case  of  gid. 
Hence  this  case  must  remain  uncertain. 

Killebrew  (1880a),  writing  from  the  same  State,  Tennessee,  in  the 
same  year  does  not  claim  to  have  seen  the  disease,  but  Stewart 
(1880a),  writing  from  New  York,  says  of  C&nurus  cerebralis:  "The 
presence  of  this  parasite  has  been  discovered  *  *  *  in  numerous 
sheep  in  this  country." 

Stewart's  statement  is  not  convincing,  but  in  connection  with  other 
things  it  shows  a  belief  on  the  part  of  men  interested  in  the  sheep 
business  that  gid  existed  in  this  country.  Later  events  indicate  that 
their  belief  and  their  statements  to  that  effect  are  quite  as  likely  to 
have  been  based  on  fact  as  to  have  been  unfounded. 

Wernicke  (1886a)  records  G.  cerebralis  from  sheep  in  Buenos  Aires. 
He  believes  it  imported  from  Europe  and  states  that  it  is  a  source  of 
worry  to  breeders.  It  seems  .altogether  likely  that  if  gid  had  been 
imported  to  South  America  from  Europe  by  1886,  it  had  probably 
been  imported  to  the  United  States  from  the  same  source  even  earlier. 
In  this  connection,  Powers  (1887^)  writes  from  New  York  the  fol- 
lowing year  concerning  gid: 

I  have  never  seen  a  case  of  this,  knowing  it  to  be  such,  nor  have  I  seen  an  American 
shepherd  who  has  met  with  it.  It  was  probably  imported  from  England,  and  it  seems 
to  prevail  chiefly  in  the  Eastern  States.  *  *  *  - 1  made  many  autopsies  of  sheep 
h  for  the  bladder  or  cyst  of  this  parasite,  but  I  never  found  one.  When  the 
case  is  long  drawn  out,  the  bladder  or  tumour  on  the  brain  by  constant  pressure  on  the 
skull,  absorbs  it  to  such  a  degree  that  a  finger  pressed  on  the  spot  discovers  a  soft  spot 
in  the  plate  of  the  bone,  or  the  latter  even  bulges  out  in  a  protuberance.  *  *  * 
Twice  I  have  seen  this  phenomenon  in  my  own  flocks  and  in  rude  fashion  lanced 
them,  thereby  saving  the  sheep. 


GID   IN    THE   UNITED   STATES.  19 

There  is  an  evident  contradiction  between  the  statement  that  the 
writer  has  never  seen  gid  and  that  he  has  operated  on  his  sheep  for  it. 

How  easy  it  would  be  to  import  a  case  of  gid  may  be  surmised 
from  Rabe's  (1889a)  case  in  a  gazelle  imported  from  South  Africa 
fourteen  days  before  death.  There  is  also  the  possibility  of  import- 
ing the  adult  worm  in  some  of  the  numerous  dogs  which  have  been 
imported  to  this  country.  Professor  Law,  in  a  personal  communica- 
tion, writes  under  date  of  July  2,  1909: 

Owing  to  its  rapid  development  in  the  lamb  it  is  less  likely  to  be  imported  in  the 
condition  of  larva,  but  among  the  many  imported  dogs  the  Taenia  must  have  been 
often  imported. 

All  things  considered,  the  likelihood  of  importing  the  disease  via 
the  dog  is  perhaps  as  great  as  that  of  importing  it  in  the  sheep,  but 
I  would  not  consider  the  latter  less  likely.  Rabe's  case  and  others 
to  be  considered  later  show  this.  Moreover,  a  possible  four  to  six 
months  is  not  a  very  rapid  development  of  disease  in  these  days  of 
rapid  transit.  An  outbreak  of  gid  attributed  by  Doctor  Law  and  by 
Taylor  and  Boynton  (1910a)  to  imported  dogs  is  discussed  later  in 
this  paper.  The  writer  has  collected  evidence  in  Montana  indicating 
that  the  gid  parasite  has  been  imported  in  dogs  in  some  instances 
and  the  disease  spread  by  the  sale  or  gift  of  these  dogs  and  their 
offspring. 

Nearly  twenty  years  ago,  Curtice  (1890c)  writes  of  larval  cestodes 
in  sheep :  ' '  Tsenia  marginata  is  more  common  in  the  United  States, 
and  T.  ccznurus  next."  He  hazards  the  guess  that  in  the  West 
wolves,  coyotes,  and  foxes  may  harbor  the  parasite.  In  a  personal 
communication  Doctor  Curtice  writes  of  the  above  under  date  of 
July  26,  1909:  "I  have  never  seen  T.  ccenurus.  I  must  have  made 
statement  on  information  by  reading." 

In  another  article  Curtice  (1892g)  has  the  following: 

The  tapeworms  identified  as  T.  ccenurus  were  found  but  once  in  Colorado.  The 
species  may  have  been  one  arising  from  rabbit  cysticerci  and  wrongly  identified. 
The  specimens  were  taken  from  a  sheep  dog.  They  are  now  in  the  bureau  collection. 

I  have  examined  these  specimens  (Nos.  2839  and  2840),  and  while 
they  are  not  in  good  condition  it  is  still  possible  to  determine  the 
essential  things.  They  are  not  T.  ccenurus,  so  far  as  the  material 
furnishes  data  on  the  subject.  To  mention  two  evident  differences, 
the  eggs  are  decidedly  oval,  and  the  handle  of  the  large  hook  is  of 
an  entirely  different  shape. 

About  the  year  1895  the  subject  of  gid  in  the  United  States  begins 
to  receive  notice  in  sheepmen's  periodicals.  Thus  we  find  gid  diag- 
nosed by  the  veterinary  editor  of  one  paper  (Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Sheep 
Breeder,  1895<r)  in  a  case  where  correspondents  from  an  unspecified 
locality  give  a  history  of  staggering  to  the  right  in  an  imported 


20  THE   GID  PARASITE  AND   ALLIED   SPECIES. 

Shropshire  ewe.  The  animal  became  unable  to  rise  and  was  killed. 
On  post-mortem  examination  a  third  of  a  teacupful  of  water  ran  out 
of  the  head.  We  are  obliged  to  concur  in  the  diagnosis  given  and 
consider  that  the  disease  was  very  likely  imported  with  the  sheep. 

Later  in  the  same  year  the  same  diagnosis  is  given  by  this  editor 
(Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Sheep  Breeder,  1895/9)  in  a  second  case  from  an 
unspecified  locality,  with  the  characteristic  symptoms  of  giddiness 
or  turning,  followed  by  death.  Another  case  is  diagnosed  as  gid  on 
the  same  symptoms  two  years  later  (Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Sheep  Breeder, 
1897$. 

Sommer  (1896c)  did  not  find  T.  coznurus  in  an  examination  of  fifty 
dogs  at  Washington,  D.  C. 

The  adult  tapeworm,  T.  coenurus,  was  reported  from  Nebraska  by 
Ward  (1896b),  but  Stiles  (1898a)  on  an  examination  of  the  head  of 
the  specimen  pronounced  it  T.  serialis.  Doctor  Stiles  tells  me  that 
he  based  this  identification  on  the  bifid  guard  of  the  small  hook,  an 
inadequate  diagnostic  character,  as  the  corresponding  guard  of  T. 
coenurus  is  also  bifid.  (See  Reinitz,  1885a,  and  Ransom,  1905d.)  On 
the  other  hand,  the  larva  and  adult  of  T.  serialis  are  known  to  occur 
in  Nebraska,  which  makes  it  likely  that  Stiles  was  correct.  Ward 
(1897b)  agrees  with  Stiles  that  it  was  T.  serialis. 

Knowles  (1897«)  writes  as  follows: 

As  numbers  of  inquiries  come  to  this  office  relative  to  gid,  or  staggers,  or  so-called 
turnsick  in  sheep,  I  *  *  *  append  a  well-written  description,  etc.,  of  this  dis- 
ease by  Doctor  Curtis.  [This  should  be  Curtice.] 

Doctor  Knowles  tells  the  writer  that  he  saw  his  first  cases  of  gid 
in  Montana  during  the  year  that  the  above  was  written,  1897. 

Stiles  (1898a),  writing  from  this  laboratory,  says  of  Coenurus  cere- 
bralis: 

Fortunately  it  does  not  seem  to  be  prevalent  in  this  country.  *  *  *  It  has  been 
impossible  for  the  writer  to  find  any  possible  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  gid 
bladderworm  in  this  country,  yet  in  view  of  the  importations  from  Europe  of  sheep 
and  dogs  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  we  are  entirely  free  from  this  parasite. 

In  a  footnote  he  says : 

One  extremely  doubtful  case  has  been  reported  to  us  from  Minnesota  of  its  occur- 
rence under  the  skin  of  a  horse.  This  latter  case  has  not  been  examined  by  the 
bureau,  but  T  would  suggest  that  Tsenia  serialis  is  common  in  America,  and  consider- 
ing the  tissue  in  which  this  parasite  was  found,  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  the 
Minnesota  case  was  one  of  Coenurus  serialis  ( Taenia  serialis)  rather  than  C.  cerebralis. 

Railliet's  (1893a)  earlier  note  of  this  case  is  based  on  correspond- 
ence. 

As  this  case  stands  we  may  choose  between  considering  it  as  the 
first  and  only  case  of  C.  serialis  in  the  horse  and  in  its  normal  loca- 
tion, or  regarding  it  as  one  of  several  cases  of  C.  cerebralis  in  the 
horse,  occurring  in  a  location  in  which  it  has  been  reported  twice 


GID  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.  21 

from  the  sheep.  The  case  is  too  doubtful  to  pass  judgment  on,  and 
the  report  may  have  been  an  error  in  the  first  place. 

Wallace  (1900a)  diagnoses  a  case  for  a  correspondent  from  Iowa 
as  gid  in  sheep.  The  symptoms  are  suspicious,  but  not  clearly  gid. 

Shaw  (190 la),  writing  of  the  sheep  industry  of  Minnesota,  says 
that  gid  "has  not  been  markedly  prevalent  hi  Minnesota."  In  a 
personal  communication  dated  July  27,  1909,  Professor  Shaw  writes: 

I  have  seen  cases  which  I  supposed  to  be  gid  in  sheep,  but  I  have  never  seen  the 
parasite  itself  *  *  *.  Dr.  H.  M.  Reynolds,  veterinarian  of  our  [Minnesota]  station 
*  *  *  tells  me  that  his  experience  is  similar  to  mine.  He  has  not  yet  seen  the 
parasite. 

The  veterinary  editor  formerly  referred  to  (Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Sheep 
Breeder,  1901 7-  and  1901£)  diagnoses  a  case  as  gid  in  reply  to  two 
correspondents  from  Montana  who  describe  the  symptoms  and  post- 
mortem findings  of  their  sheep.  The  diagnosis  is  unmistakably  cor- 
rect. He  states  (1901<5)  that  gid  is  "fortunately  not  very  common 
except  in  the  native  sheep  of  the  plains."  Strictly  speaking,  the  only 
native  sheep  in  America  are  the  Bighorn  sheep,  Ovis  montana,  of  the 
mountains,  never  reported  as  subjects  of  gid.  The  reference  is  per- 
haps to  native-bred  sheep.  The  diseased  sheep  in  this  case  came 
from  Colorado,  and  the  editor  states: 

It  [C.  cerebralis]  is  especially  common  in  Colorado,  where  70  per  cent  of  sheep 
examined  by  Doctor  Curtice  were  infested  by  it.  It  is  unquestionably  quite  as  com- 
mon in  all  the  western  country  from  Mexico  as  far  north  as  the  animals  mentioned 
[foxes,  wolves,  and  coyotes]  exist. 

It  has  already  been  noted  that  Doctor  Curtice  says  that  he  has 
never  seen  T.  ccenurus. 

Finally  the  editor  states  that  he  has  recently  operated  on  seven 
sheep  for  gid.  This  is  the  first  record  of  what  appears  to  be  a  clear 
case  of  the  finding  of  the  parasite  in  the  United  States.  On  attempt- 
ing to  secure  further  information  about  these  cases  it  was  learned  that 
the  veterinary  editor  in  question  was  deceased. 

In  another  sheep-breeders'  periodical  (Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Shepherd's 
Bulletin,  1902<*)  a  case  from  Illinois  is  diagnosed  as  probably  gid.  The 
symptoms  are  quite  characteristic — slobbering,  refusal  to  eat,  turning 
always  to  left,  head  held  down  to  left,  death  the  fourth  day.  The 
case  was  probably  gid.  The  editor  states  that  he  has  seen  gid  in 
England,  but  not  in  the  United  States,  though  he  claims  that  there  is 
reason  to  suppose  that  it  occurs  in  imported  sheep. 

Law  (1903a)  says  of  the  adult  tapeworm  from  Ccenurus  cerebralis: 
"The  writer  raised  forty-two,  averaging  1  foot,  in  six  weeks  in  a 
sucking  puppy."  Doctor  Law  writes  in  a  letter  of  July  2,  1909, 
already  noted,  that  this  was  done  in  Edinburgh,  Scotland,  in  1864 
or  1865,  and  that  he  has  not  seen  gid  in  America. 


22  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED   SPECIES. 

Cases  from  Nevada,  showing  the  symptoms  and  post-mortem  evi- 
dence of  gid,  are  so  diagnosed  by  the  veterinary  editor  of  the  American 
Sheep  Breeder  (1903<r).  Some  cases  from  Kansas  and  Iowa,  with 
symptoms  of  gid,  but  no  post-mortem  findings,  are  also  diagnosed 
as  gid.  (Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Sheep  Breeder,  1903/?  and  1903?-.) 

The  same  year,  the  veterinary  editor  of  the  American  Shepherd's 
Bulletin  (19030-)  states  that  the  disease  is  prevalent  in  Utah  and 
common  in  other  sections.  He  diagnoses  gid  in  two  imported  rams  in 
Michigan  (Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Shepherd's  Bulletin,  1903/?) — the  diagnosis 
seems  correct  from  the  characteristic  symptom  complex — and  gives 
the  report  of  an  operation  (Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Shepherd's  Bulletin, 
1903;-)  from  an  unspecified  locality  where  some  one  found  a  "bag  of 
water  "  on  the  sheep's  brain. 

The  next  year,  Stiles  (1904s)  wrote  of  Ccenurus  cerebralis:  "I  have 
never  seen  any  specimen  of  this  parasite  collected  in  the  United 
States." 

The  same  year,  an  outbreak  of  gid  occurred  in  Montana,  a  discus- 
sion of  this  outbreak  being  given  the  following  year  by  Ransom 
(1905d).  In  that  article  Ransom  states: 

Until  very  recently,  so  far  as  it  has  been  possible  to  determine,  gid  has  been  entirely 
unknown  in  this  country.  *  *  *  It  seems  hardly  probable,  in  view  of  our  present 
knowledge,  that  the  disease  has  been  altogether  absent  *  *  *  The  disease  is  now 
present  in  the  United  States,  cases  having  developed  recently  which,  as  the  attend- 
ant circumstances  show,  must  have  resulted  from  infection  in  this  country. 

The  sheep  in  question  died  at  Bozeman,  Mont.  A  comparison  of 
the  coenuri  obtained  showed  a  complete  agreement  with  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  European  C&nurus,  cerebralis.  Ransom's  article  pointed 
out  the  danger  from  this  disease  and  the  means  of  combating  it. 

In  addition  to  Ransom's  cases  of  gid  from  Montana,  the  veterinaiy 
editor  of  the  American  Sheep  Breeder  (1905nr-£)  answers  a  number  of 
letters  from  which  it  appears  that  gid  was  present  the  same  year  in 
Missouri,  Kansas,  Ohio,  Colorado,  Indian  Territory,  and  other  locali- 
ties not  specified.  The  symptoms  were  quite  characteristic  in  the 
Missouri  cases  and  were  confirmed  by  post-mortem  in  the  cases  from 
Ohio  and  the  Indian  Territory.  These  cases  are,  in  my  opinion, 
undoubtedly  gid,  and  the  Kansas  and  Colorado  cases  are  possibly  gid. 

Clarke  (1907  or)  states  that  he  has  met  many  cases  of  gid  in  sheep 
at  the  slaughterhouses,  but  in  a  personal  communication  of  August 
2,  1909,  he  writes  that  this  was  in  England. 

Wing  (1907^),  after  many  years  experience  with  sheep,  states  that 
he  is  not  sure  that  he  has  ever  seen  an  instance  of  gid. 

Kaupp  (1908or  and  1910^)  has  overlooked  the  work  of  Ransom 
(1905d),  as  well  as  some  other  articles  we  have  cited,  and  states  that 
gid  is  not  reported  in  the  United  States. 


GID   IN    THE    UNITED   STATES.  23 

Luckey  (1908<r),  writing  from  Missouri,  states:  "Although  not 
very  common  in  this  State,  what  is  known  as  sturdy  or  gid  in  sheep 
causes  some  loss." 

Regarding  this,  Doctor  Luckey  writes,  under  date  of  July  21, 1909, 
that  he  has  not  kept  an  accurate  record  of  outbreaks,  but  remembers 
a  report  from  Willow  Springs,  Howell  County,  describing  perfectly 
the  symptoms  of  gid  in  goats.  This  is  the  only  case  known  to  me 
where  gid  has  been  reported  from  the  goat  in  the  United  States,  and 
it  is  included  in  a  subsequent  list  as  a  probable  case.  • 

The  veterinary  editor  of  the  American  Sheep  Breeder  (1908/3)  diag- 
noses as  gid  a  very  doubtful  case  in  an  Iowa  sheep,  and  elsewhere 
(Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Sheep  Breeder,  1908^)  states  that  the  disease  is 
very  prevalent  at  the  time  in  some  parts  of  the  United  States. 

The  writer  (Hall,  1909or  and  1910^)  has  twice  reported  gid  from 
the  United  States,  once  with  a  record  of  cases. 

The  official  files  of  this  Bureau  furnish  additional  data,  mostly 
obtained  through  inquiries  by  Dr.  B.  H.  Ransom,  chief  of  the  Zoolog- 
ical Division  of  the  Bureau.  Dr.  S.  W.  McClure,  Bureau  veterinary 
inspector,  Pendleton,  Oreg.,  in  addition  to  furnishing  this  division 
with  specimens  of  giddy  sheep,  further  informs  us  under  date  of  Sep- 
tember 3,  1906,  that  a  highly  reliable  sheep  man  of  Chouteau,  Mont., 
claims  to  have  had  gid  among  his  yearlings  "for  many  years,"  hav- 
ing 40  to  60  affected  every  year  out  of  2,000.  Many  other  Montana 
sheepmen,  according  to  Doctor  McClure  in  a  letter  of  October  15, 
1906,  claim  to  have  the  disease  in  their  flocks.  One  claims  to  have 
15  to  20  cases  some  years,  another  had  over  200  cases  among  10,000 
lambs  in  1905,  another  had  30  cases  among  4,000  lambs  in  1898,  an- 
other had  15  cases  among  1,500  bucks  in  1906,  and  others  had  a  few 
cases  each  year.  Doctor  McClure  states  that  he  has  met  sheepmen 
who  tell  him  that  when  they  recognize  an  animal  as  affected  with 
gid  they  forward  it  to  the  feeding  point  for  market  if  they  have  a 
shipment  about  that  time. 

Dr.  R.  H.  Treacy  of  this  Bureau  reports  under  date  of  June  5,  1907, 
a  list  of  11  flocks  in  Montana  where  gid,  shown  by  the  presence  of 
cysts  in  the  brain,  was  reported  by  Doctors  Stauffer,  Nutting,  and 
Gary.  According  to  Doctor  Treacy,  the  sheepmen  have  been  class- 
ing the  trouble  as  loco,  poison  weed,  water  on  the  brain,  grubs  in  the 
head,  etc.,  and  have  paid  no  attention  to  destroying  the  dead  ani- 
mals. This  fact,  together  with  the  statement  of  Doctor  Stauffer  in 
his  letter  of  February  25,  1908,  to  Doctor  Treacy,  that  certain  sheep- 
men would  not  subject  their  dogs  to  vermifuge  treatment  because 
they  were  using  the  dogs,  shows  a  condition  of  affairs  which  must 
make  for  the  spread  of  gid  in  Montana.  Two  other  factors  in  the 


24  THE   GID  PARASITE  AND   ALLIED  SPECIES. 

spread  of  gid  are  mentioned  by  Doctor  Gary  in  a  letter  to  Doctor 
Treacy  under  date  of  April  9,  1908.  One  is  the  habit  of  some  sheep- 
men picking  up  a  dog  wherever  they  can  find  one.  The  other  is  the 
"floater"  band,  or  wandering  band  of  sheep.  In  the  latter  connec- 
tion he  states: 

In  the  spring  of  1907  a  giddy  band  of  "floaters  "  from  Flatwillow  country  trailed  along 
the  northern  boundary  of  the  Crow  Reservation,  several  of  the  lambs  dying  as  they- 
passed  through  the  Blue  Creek  country  9  miles  south  of  Billings,  and  I  believe  it  waa 
through  this  band  that  the  Arthur  Milne  band  in  Blue  Creek  became  affected  this 
spring.  *  *  *  The  Milne  lambs  were  raised  in  the  Blue  Creek  country,  and  gid 
has  never  been  known  there  till  this  spring. 

A  discussion  of  the  existing  neglect  of  prophylactic  measures 
against  gid  in  the  western  part  of  the  United  States  has  been  given 
by  the  writer  in  a  bureau  article.  (See  Hall,  1910or.) 

Specimens  of  Ccenurus  cerebralis  from  the  brains  of  giddy  sheep 
were  collected  by  Professor  Cooley  January  5,  1904,  Doctor  McClure 
in  May,  1906,  Doctor  Gary  April  20,  1907,  Doctor  Davison  December 
21,  1907,  Doctor  Stauffer  in  January,  1908,  and  Doctor  Peck  July 
11,  1908. 

Doctor  Stauffer  also  furnished  a  map  of  Chouteau  County,  Mont., 
showing  the  distribution  of  gid  in  that  county.  Doctor  Treacy  has 
prepared  a  map  of  the  State  of  Montana  showing  the  distribution  of 
gi<i  in  that  State  during  the  spring  of  1908.  From  these  maps,  from 
correspondence,  and  from  information  obtained  during  a  personal 
investigation  of  gid  in  Montana  during  the  spring  of  1910,  the  map 
given  here  as  figure  1  has  been  compiled.  The  infected  areas  shown 
by  Doctor  Treacy  are  indicated  by  solid  blocks.  Other  infected  areas 
where  gid  has  occurred  at  some  time  during  the  period  from  1898  to 
1910,  inclusive,  are  indicated  by  hollow  blocks.  The  area  where  the 
continued  recurrence  of  gid  shows  that  the  range  is  infected  is  indi- 
cated by  shading.  This  area  is  400  miles  long  and  in  places  is  200 
miles  wide.  During  the  personal  investigation  referred  to  above, 
evidence  was  obtained  showing  that  cases  of  gid  occurring  outside  of 
the  infected  area  indicated  on  the  map  had  probably  been  imported 
from  the  infected  area.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  map  that  gid  has 
occurred  in  Teton,  Chouteau,  Valley,  Cascade,  Fergus,  Gallatin,  and 
Yellowstone  counties.  The  first  four  and  probably  northern  Dawson 
are  infected  ranges. 

Montana's  5,747,000  sheep,  representing,  according  to  the  Bureau 
of  Statistics  a  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  a 
value  of  $24,137,000  on  January  1,  1910,  are  threatened  by  the  pres- 
ence of  a  disease  which  has  become  enzootic  over  a  large  part  of  the 

°  Crop  Reporter,  IT.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  vol.  12,  no.  2,  February,  1910. 


GID   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


25 


51674°— Bull.  125,  pt.  1—10 


26  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

State,  and  which  in  recent  years  has  exacted  toll  in  increasing  amounts 
from  the  flocks.  Such  a  condition  necessarily  exposes  the  flocks  of 
neighboring  States  to  the  danger  of  infection  carried  from  Montana 
by  dogs  or  possibly  by  wild  carnivora  or  in  shipments  of  sheep.  In 
view  of  the  unsuccessful  efforts  of  European  countries  to  eradicate 
gid  in  over  half  a  century  of  educated  effort,  and  in  view  of  the  in- 
crease and  spread  of  the  disease  in  Montana  in  the  last  decade,  it  is 
to  be  hoped  that  the  importance  of  attempting  the  eradication  of 
this  disease  will  soon  be  realized. 

The  first  authentic  instance  of  gid  in  the  eastern  United  States 
occurred  in  1909,  and  the  first  account  of  it  was  given  by  Doctor  Law 
in  a  paper  read  before  the  New  York  State  Veterinary  Medical  Society 
in  August,  1909.  The  outbreak  was  reported  by  Taylor  and  Boynton 
(1910a),  who  found  it  in  a  flock  of  sheep  about  40  miles  from  Ithaca. 
They  discovered  the  gid  parasite  in  the  brain  and  claim  to  have 
raised  one  specimen  of  the  adult  tapeworm  in  a  dog  by  feeding  a 
coenurus  to  it.  They  believed  that  they  found  the  source  of  the 
disease  in  two  collies  imported  from  Scotland  to  the  farm  where 
the  disease  occurred.  The  adult  parasite  was  apparently  not  sought 
for  in  the  dogs.  In  a  footnote  they  state  that  Dr.  Charles  Linch 
investigated  an  outbreak  of  disease  among  sheep  in  New  York  in 
the  spring  of  1909  and  reported  that  it  was  gid,  but  did  not  report 
finding  the  parasite. 

Melvin  (1910.-*)  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Taylor  and 
Boynton  have  overlooked  a  number  of  articles  when  they  state : 

In  a  careful  search  of  the  literature  we  have  failed  to  find  any  authentic  report  of  a 
positively  identified  case  of  the  disease  having  appeared  in  the  United  States. 

Subsequently,  Taylor  and  Boynton  (1910,5)  have  modified  this 
statement,  making  it  refer  only  to  New  York  State. 

The  occurrence  of  certain,  probable,  and  doubtful  cases  of  gid  in 
the  United  States  is  indicated  in  the  following  tabular  statement. 


OCCURRENCES   OF  GID  IN   THE   UNITED   STATES.  27 

List  of  occurrences  of  Multiceps  ".nulticeps  recorded  from  the  United  States. 


Locality. 

Author. 

Date. 

Notes  and  comments. 

New  York  (?)  
United  States  (?) 

Livingston  
Leidy. 

ISOftx  
1856a  andb.. 

Three  cases;  probably  meningitis,  not 
gid. 
Parasite  observed;  place  not  stated. 

Do 

McClure  

1870a  

Do. 

United  States 

Verrill     .  . 

1870d.. 

States  that  gid  occurs  in  United  States. 

New    York    and    else- 

Tellor.             

1879a.. 

Do. 

where. 
Tennessee                   

Crutchfield  

1880a  

Claims  to  have  lost  sheep  from  gid;  no 

United  States 

Stewart  

1880a... 

symptoms  or  post-mortem  records. 
States  that  gid  occurs  in  United  States. 

Eastern  United  States 

Powers 

1887a 

Claims  to  have  cured,  but  not  seen  gid. 

United  States 

Curtice  . 

1890C.. 

States  that  gid  occurs  in  United  States. 

Colorado  
United  States 

....do  

Veterinary     editor, 

1892g  
1895a 

Adult  from  dog;  Curtice  doubts  cor- 
rectness; I  find  it  incorrect. 
Imported  Shropshire;  symptoms  and 

Do  

American     Sheep 
Breeder. 
do  

18958... 

post-mortem  indicate  gid. 
One  case;  characteristic  symptoms. 

Nebraska  

Ward  

1896b  

Adult  from  dog;  Stiles  (1898a),on  ex- 

United States 

Veterinary    editor, 

1897/3 

amination,   makes   this    T.   serialis. 
Accepted  by  Ward  (1897b)  from  cor- 
respondence. 
One  case;  characteristic  symptoms. 

Montana  

American    Sheep 
Breeder. 
Knowles  

1897a  

Notes  inquiries  in  regard  to  gid.     Dr. 

Minnesota 

Stiles  

1898a  

Knowles  saw  cases  in  1897. 
One  case  in  horse  under  skin;  Stiles 

Iowa 

Wallace  

1900a  . 

thinks  this  may  be  C.  serialis;  doubt- 
ful; case  previously  noted  by  Railliet 
(1893a)  from  correspondence. 
One  case;  symptoms  not  characteristic. 

Minnesota. 

Shaw  

190  la  

States  that  gid  occurs  in  United  States. 

Montana  

Veterinary    editor, 

1901rand<j  

Several    cases;  symptoms    and    post- 

Colorado   

American    Sheep 
Breeder. 
do  

19015  

mortem  show  gid  unmistakably. 
States  that  gid  occurs  in  United  States; 

United  States  

...do  

190W    . 

Curtice  wrongly  quoted  as  authority. 
Seven  cases  operated  on  by  author. 

Illinois  

Veterinary    editor, 

1902a  

One  case;  characteristic  symptoms. 

Nevada... 

American     S  h  e  p  - 
herd's  Bulletin. 
Veterinary        editor, 

1903a  

Several    cases;  symptoms    and    post- 

Kansas. 

American        Sheep 
Breeder, 
.do  .  . 

19030  

mortem  show  gid  unmistakably. 
Several  cases;  characteristic  symptoms. 

Iowa  .        .  . 

do  

1903r  

One  case;  characteristic  symptoms. 

Utah  and  elsewhere  

Veterinary    editor, 

1903a  

States  that  gid  occurs  in  United  States. 

Michigan  

American     S  h  e  p  - 
herd's  Bulletin. 
do  

19030  

Two    imported    rams;  characteristic 

United  States  

....do  

1903r--. 

symptoms. 
One  case;  "bag  of  water"  on  brain. 

Montana  

Ransom  

1903d.....  

Several  cases  in  1904;  parasite  found 

Missouri 

Veterinary    editor, 

1905a  

and  studied. 
Several  cases;  characteristic  symptoms. 

Kansas  

American    Sheep 
Breeder. 
....  do  

19050  

Several  cases;  symptoms  not  character- 

Ohio   

do  

1905r  

istic. 
Two  cases;  symptoms  and  post-mor- 

Colorado   

...do.... 

19055... 

tems  show  gid;  had  lost  sheep  thus 
before. 
Few  cases;  symptoms  not  characteristic. 

United  States 

do  . 

1905s 

States  that  gid  occurs  in  United  States; 

Indian  Territory  

.  ..do  

1905C  

in  answer  to  some  letters. 
Several    cases;  symptoms    and    post- 

Missouri 

Luckey  

1908a..    .. 

mortems  show  gid. 
States  that  gid  occurs  in  United  States. 

United  States  

Veterinary    editor, 

1908a  

Do. 

Iowa  

American    Sheep 
Breeder. 
...do.... 

19080... 

One  case;  symptoms  not  characteristic. 

Montana  and  Washing- 
ton, D.  C. 

New  York  

Hall  
Taylor  and  Boynton. 

1909a  
1910a  

Two  natural  and  one  experimental  in- 
fections; first  record  in  this  country 
of  adult  worm  produced  by  feeding 
larva. 
Several   cases;    symptoms   and   post- 

Montana   

Hall  

19100  

mortem  show  gid. 
This  article. 

28 


THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 


The  following  list  of  cases  occurring  in  the  United  States  and  not 
previously  recorded  is  compiled  from  correspondence  as  given: 

List  of  occurrences  of  Multiceps  multiceps  in  the  United  States  recorded  here  for  the  first  time. 


Locality. 

Letter. 

Notes  and  dates. 

Shelby,  Mont  

Dr.  McClure  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
July  18,  1906. 

Dr.  McClure  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
Sept.  3,  1900. 
Dr.  McClure  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
Oct.  15,  1906. 
do 

Sun  River  Land  and  Live  Stock  Co.;  250  out  of 
10,000;  190(1;  1    case    shipped    to    Washington, 
D.  C.,  died  en  route. 
Cowell  ilock;  40  to  GO  out  of  2,000;  many  years. 

Cowell  flock;  15  to  30  cases;  almost  every  year. 

McDonald  flock;  15  to  20  cases  some  years. 
Sun  River  Land  and  Live  Stock  Co.;  200  out  of 
10,000;  1905. 
Whitcomb  flock;  30  out  of  4,000;  1898. 

Phillips  flock;  15  out  of  15,000;  1906. 
Rambouillet  sheepmen  claim  to  have  had  several 
cases  in  imported  and  at  least  one  case  in  native 
sheep. 
Phillips  flock;  2  or  3  at  date  of  writing. 

Pirrie  flock;  250  to  300;  1907;  parasite  found  in  3 
of  4  examined. 
McDonald  flock;  125  dead  at  date  of  writing. 

Infected  country;  1907. 
Do. 

Sheep   from    Flatwillow  country  and   probably 
infected  there. 
In  Blackwood,  Taylor,  Sprinkle,  Sprinkle  Bros., 
and    McCann    flocks;  1907;  reported    by    Dr. 
Stauffer. 
Rieder  flock;  1907;  reported  by  Dr.  Stauffer. 
Town  flock;  1907;  reported  by  Dr.  Stauffer. 
McDonald  flock;  1907;  reported  by  Dr.  Nutting. 

Leech  flock;  1907;  reported  by  Dr.  Nutting. 
Green  flock;  1907;  reported  by  Dr.  Gary. 
I'irrie  flock;  1907;  reported  by  Dr.  Cary. 
One  case  in  imported  ram. 

McDonald  flock;  several  cases  at  date  of  writing; 
parasite  found;  10  percent  lost  the  winter  before. 
Sprague  and  Lavid  flocks;  1908. 

L.  Sprinkle,  C.  Sprinkle,  and  Taylor  flocks;  1907 
and  1908. 
Northwestern  Live  Stock  Co.;  1908. 
Blankenbaker  flock;  1908. 
One  case;  1907. 
Ewes  affected;  not  clearly  gld. 

Most  of  these  giddy  bands  seem  to  have  originated 
in  the  Flatwillow  country. 

One  sheep  shipped  to  Washington,  D.  C. 
Parasite  forwarded  to  Washington,  D.  C. 
Two  sheep  shipped  to  Washington,  D.  C. 
Symptoms  of  gid  in  goats;  date  not  given. 

Two  cases,  one  showing  cyst  on  postmortem  ex- 
amination. 

Chouteau    County, 
Mont. 
Do  

Do    ... 

Sunnyside,       Cascade 
County,  Mont. 
Zortman,       Chouteau 
County,  Mont. 
Phillips,  Mont  

do  

do  

...do 

Ohio  

Dr.  Ransom  to  Dr.  McClure, 
Oct.  24,  190(5. 

Dr.  McClure  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
Dec.  5,  1906. 
Dr.    Gary   to   Dr.    Treacy,- 
Apr.  20,  1907. 
Dr.  Nutting  to  Dr.  Treacy, 
April,  1907. 
Dr.    Cary   to    Dr.    Treacy, 
May  21,  1907. 
...:.do  

Montana  

Rothlemay,  Mont 

Chouteau,  Mont 

Flatwillow      country, 
Fergus  County,  Mont. 
Swimming    Woman 
country,      Fergus 
County,  Mont. 
Yellowstone     County, 
Mont. 
Chinook,  Mont. 

.do. 

Dr.  McClure  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
June  5,  1907. 

...do... 

Saco,  Mont  

Cut  Bank,  Mont  

...do  

Chouteau     County, 
Mont. 
Dupuyer,  Mont.  ... 

..  .do  

.do... 

11  untley,  Mont  

.do... 

Rothlemay,  Mont 

do 

South  Dakota... 

Dr.  Ransom  to  Dr.  Hick- 
man,  July  2,  1907. 
Dr.  Davison  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
Dec.  21,  1907. 
Dr.  Staufler  to  Dr.  Treacy, 
Feb.  25,  1908. 
do  

Teton  County,  Mont.  .  . 
Sage  Creek,  Mont  

Bear  Paw  Mountains, 
Mont. 
Benton,  Mont  

...do... 

Virgelle,  Mont  

...do..: 

Chinook,  Mont  

.do  

Billings,  Mont  

Swimming    Woman 
country,    Flatwillow 
country,  Musselshell 
country,  Custer  Sta- 
tion, and  Blue  Creek 
country. 
Conrad  Mont...  

Roy  Stebbins  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
Feb.  27,  1908. 
Dr.   Cary  to    Dr.    Treacy, 
Apr.  9,  1908. 

Dr.    Peck  to   Dr.   Melvin, 
July  8,  1908. 
Dr.    Peck   to   Dr.    Melvin, 
July  13,  1908. 
Dr.  Stauffer  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
Feb.  5,  1909. 
Dr.  Luckey  to  the  writer, 
July  21,  1909. 
Dr.  McIIenry  to  Dr.  Melvin, 
June  14,  1910. 

Fort  Benton,  Mont  

Oildford,        Chouteau 
County,  Mont. 
Willow  Springs,  Mo.  ... 

Waverly,  Iowa  

Some  discrepancies  will  be  noted  in  the  above  figures.  No 
attempt  has  been  made  to  ascertain  which  are  correct.  Dates  of 
occurrences  must  also  be  taken  with  some  regard  for  the  fact  that 


GID   IN    CANADA.  29 

a  record  of  gid  by  one  or  more  observers  as  occurring  in  two  consec- 
utive years  may  not  necessarily  be  a  record  of  two  outbreaks  but 
merely  a  record  of  one  outbreak  running  through  the  winter  of  one 
year  into  the  spring  of  the  following  year. 

Giddy  sheep  have  been  sent  in  to  this  laboratory  from  Montana 
on  four  occasions,  two  sheep  being  sent  in  May,  1907;  one  in  July, 
1908;  two,  already  noted  as  recorded  by  Hall  (1909«),  hi  February, 
1909;  and  one  in  May,  1910.  In  an  earlier  shipment  in  July,  1906, 
the  one  sheep  sent  died  en  route. 

Both  the  adult  and  larval  Multiceps  multiceps  have  been  pro- 
duced in  this  laboratory  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  and  at  Bethesda, 
Md.,  by  feeding  experiments  in  cases  other  than  those  noted  by  Hall 
(1909<*)  in  an  earlier  paper. 

From  the  foregoing  it  seems  certain  that  the  gid  parasite  was 
observed  in  this  country  at  least  as  early  as  1901.  It  does  not 
seem  likely  that  the  many  claims  made  for  its  occurrence  earlier  than 
this  are  entirely  unfounded.  During  an  hives tigation  of  gid  in  Mon- 
tana in  the  spring  of  1910,  the  writer  met  a  number  of  sheepmen 
who  claimed  to  have  had  their  first  losses  from  gid  some  time  between 
the  years  1885  and  1890.  These  men  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
disease  ever  since  and  still  have  it  in  their  flocks,  so  that  there  is  no 
reasonable  doubt  as  to  gid  having  occurred  in  this  country  previous 
to  1890.  Certainly  it  now  has  a  foothold  in  this  country. 

GID    IN    CANADA. 

The  presence  of  gid  in  either  the  United  States  or  in  Canada  must 
necessarily  be  of  interest  to  the  other  of  the  two  countries,  owing  to 
the  possibility  of  the  disease  being  carried  across  the  border  by  dogs 
or  wild  carnivora  or  in  shipments  of  sheep.  In  the  course  of  a  corre- 
spondence with  this  Bureau  relative  to  gid,  Dr.  J.  G.  Rutherford, 
the  veterinary  director-general  of  Canada,  undertook  to  find  out 
whether  gid  had  been  imported  into  Canada  by  making  inquiry  of 
sheep  breeders  and  dealers.  From  a  synoptical  statement  of  the 
replies  made  by  thirteen  dealers  it  appears  that  eleven  have  never 
seen  the  disease  in  their  flocks,  and  Doctor  Rutherford  himself 
states,  hi  a  letter  of  October  8,  1909: 

During  many  years'  practice,  I  have,  personally,  never  seen  the  disease  in  Canada, 
although  I  was  quite  familiar  with  it  in  Scotland  when  a  young  man.  I  have  never 
heard  the  disease  mentioned  by  Canadian  veterinarians,  although,  as  you  are  aware, 
this  is  no  proof  of  its  nonexistence  in  the  country,  as  the  members  of  our  profession 
are  seldom  called  upon  to  treat  sheep. 

Of  the  two  dealers  who  had  seen  the  disease,  F.  H.  Neil,  of  Lucan, 
Ontario,  "has  had  no  trouble  with  gid  parasite  for  a  number  of 
years.  Has  seen  some  flocks  affected  in  both  Canada  and  the 
United  States,  but  does  not  specify  where." 


30 


TIIE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 


The  other  dealer,  J.  H.  Patrick,  of  Ilderton,  Ontario,  "has  had  no 
trouble  with  this  parasite  the  last  few  years ;  previously  when  import- 
ing sheep  in  large  numbers  experienced  considerable  loss,  which  he 
attributed  to  this  cause." 

From  a  scientific  standpoint,  the  data  given  above  do  not 
justify  a  positive  record  of  the  gid  parasite  from  Canada,  and  if  the 
disease  exists  there  at  all  it  seems  from  the  above  evidence  to  be 
comparatively  unimportant.  At  the  same  time,  the  presence  of  gid 
in  northern  Montana  would  constitute  a  ready  source  of  infection 
for  sheep  in  Canadian  territory. 

THE  HOSTS  AND  OCCURRENCES  OF  THE  LARVAL  MULTICEPS  MULTICEPS. 

In  compiling  the  following  list  of  hosts,  an  attempt  has  been 
made  to  put  them  on  an  objective  basis  so  far  as  possible.  A  list  of 
certain  or  probable  hosts  has  been  compiled  for  those  cases  where 
Multiceps  multiceps,  or  what  appears  to  have  been  M.  multiceps, 
has  been  found  at  least  once  in  the  host  in  question.  A  list  of  erro- 
neous records  has  been  compiled  for  cases  where  there  is  certainly 
an  error  in  the  record  or  in  the  finding.  A  third  list  of  doubtful 
forms  seems  to  be  the  only  proper  place  for  cases  where  the  evidence 
is  inadequate  for  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  record. 

In  the  first  list  given  below,  only  those  records  of  occurrences  in 
sheep  and  cattle  which  are  of  historic  interest  or  which  show  geo- 
graphic or  time  distribution  are  given,  as  the  former  are  the  usual 
and  the  latter  the  very  common  hosts  of  the  parasite.  In  the  other 
cases  there  are  included  only  those  where  the  presence  of  a  cosnurus 
has  been  shown  at  least  once  for  that  host,  assuming  it  as  probable 
from  the  evidence  at  hand  that  the  ccenurus  in  question  was  Multiceps 
multiceps. 

List  of  certain  or  probable  occurrences  of  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Sheep  

Greece 

Hippocrates  1825a 

Probable  cases  460-375  B  C 

Qoat  

..do  

do 

Do. 

Sheep  

Germany  

Rolflnck  HSGa  .  . 

Do  

Switzerland 

Wepfer  l(>58a 

Cattle  

...  .do  

do 

Sheep  

Germany  

Scultetus  lf)72a.. 

Date  of  first  certain  case  1634. 

Cattle  

Germany  (?)           .... 

B  runner  1  (>'.)!«. 

According     to     Ktichenmeister 

Do  

"  Berovla"  

Wepfer  1724a..      .  . 

(1880a). 

"<;urtwillae"  

Sheep  

Germany  

Leske  1780a  

First  recognized  as  a  cestode  para- 

Do   

do  

Goeze  1780a  

site. 
Independently  recognized  as  a  par- 

Do... 

Italy  

Fontana  1784a  .  .  , 

asite. 

Cattle  

..do  

do     . 

Sheep  

Germany 

Sohrank  17SSa 

Cattle  

do  . 

do 

Chamois.  

Alps  

Ketzius  179fla  . 

A  t  least  one  case. 

Sheep  

England  . 

Moorcroft  1792a 

Claimed  to  occur  in  France  and 

Cattle  

do  

.  .do... 

Italy  also. 

African  antelope..  .  . 

Not  given  

Rudolph!  1808a  . 

Accepted  here  on  basis  of  subse- 

quent findings. 

HOSTS  AND  OCCURRENCES  OF  MULTICEPS  MULTICEPS.  31 

List  of  certain  or  probable  occurrences  of  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps — Continued. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Sheep  

France 

Bosc  181Ca 

Horse  

Bousset  1822a 

According  to  Gurlt  (1831a) 

Do 

(') 

Hofacker  1823a 

Chamois. 

Paris,  France 

De  Blainville  1824a 

Sheep  

France 

Yvart  1827a 

Do  

do  

Dupuy  1831a.. 

cording  to  Braun  (1894a). 
From  spinal  canal 

Horse  

Frenzel(Date?) 

According  to   Gurlt   (1831a)   and 

Do 

England 

Youatt  1834b 

Numan  (1850b). 

St.  Domingo  goat.  .  . 

do  

Youatt  1836c 

symptoms  given. 

Sheep.  .  .  . 

Germany 

Pluskal  1844a. 

nurus   on   basis   of  subsequent 
findings. 

Do  

Austria  

do  

Do... 

Ireland  

Bellingham  1844a 

Goat  

Germany  

Klencke  1844a. 

Mouflon.  . 

Montpelier,  France 

Gervais  1847b 

One  case 

Horse  

Ammon(?) 

According  to  Numan  (1850b) 

Sheep  

(?) 

Storig(Date?). 

Found  it  twice  in  the  medulla  ob- 

Do   

Holland  

Numan  1850b 

longata,    according    to    Numan 
(1850b). 

Angora  goat  

do  

....do  

in  cerebrum,  medulla  oblongata, 
and  in  spinal  cord. 
Coenurus  is  figured. 

Cattle  

Kempton,  [Bavaria1*] 

Hering  1852a 

Occurred  in  1850-51 

Sheep  

Germany  

Hagmaier  1853a 

In  spinal  canal. 

Antelope  

Jacques  and   Lafosse 

Goat  

(?) 

1854b. 
do  

Sheep  

Scotland  .  . 

McCall  1857a... 

Do  

France... 

Reynal  1857a.  . 

Cattle  

.do.. 

do 

Sheep  

A  If  or  t,  France 

Valenciennes  1857a 

In  spinal  cord  and  brain'  sent  by 

Horse  

Vienna,  Austria. 

Spinola  1858b  

Delafond. 
In  spinal  cord;  specimen  in  veteri- 

Sheep   

Germany  

do.. 

nary  school. 
In  spinal  cord. 

Goat  

Toulouse,  France 

Baillet  1859b.. 

One  certain  and  1  possible  infection 

Gazelle  

do  . 

do 

of  4  experiment  animals. 

Sheep  

Warschau  .  .  . 

Leisering  1859a 

Eichler's  subcutaneous  specimen* 

Do  

Germany 

Leisering  18C2a 

found  to  be  coenurus  by  Eichlerj 
Leisering,  and  Zenker. 

Gazelle     (Antilope 

do  

do  

specimen;     Eichler's    specimen 
noted  again. 
One  case  in  a  zoological  park 

dorcap}. 
Horse  

Prussia  

Esse  et  al.  18G3a:  Kei- 

One  case;   accepted  on  svmptoms 

Sheep  

Iceland  

per  et  al.  1804.a 
Krabbe  1864h 

and  in  view  of  other  cases. 
Disease  often  seen  here'   accepted 

Cattle  

..do  

do... 

on    Krabbe's   finding   of   adult 
worm  in  dogs. 
Rare;  accepted  as  above 

Sheep  

Denmark  

do  

Claimed    to    occur;     accepted    as 

Cattle... 

.    do  

..do  

above. 
Do 

Do  

England  

Cooper  1805a.. 

Three  cases. 

Chamois  

Germany  

Frauenfeld  IStiSa 

Do. 

Sheep  

Vienna,  Austria...  . 

Bunion  1874a.  . 

Several  spinal  cases  seen  by  Roll. 

Sheep  

Germany.  .  . 

Miiller  1877a 

One  case  with  coenurus  in  spinal 

Antelope    (Bubalis 
sp.). 
Sheep  

Lyon,  France  
South  Australia 

Bertolus   and    Chau- 
veau  1879a. 
Dixon  1883a. 

cord;   1  in  medulla  oblongata. 
Host  from  Africa. 

Do  

Sardinia 

Parona  1884a 

Horse  

Culm,  Germany 

Schwanefeld  1885a 

Contained  one-sixteenth  of  a  liter 

Sheep  

Buenos  Ayres,  Argen- 

Wemicke 1886a 

of  fluid. 

nipnotragus     egui- 

tine  Republic. 

Germany  L  . 

Rabe  1889a.  . 

Host  from  South  Africa;  in  brain, 

nus  (?). 
Sheep  

Montana,  U.  S 

Vet.  Ed.  Amer  Sheep 

thyroid,  lymph  glands,  and  mus- 
culature. 

Do... 

New  Zealand  

Breeder  1901  rand  3. 
Gilruth  1902a 

mortem  findings. 

Goat  

Cape  Colony 

Buckley  1904a 

Cow... 

...do... 

Robinson  1905a... 

toms  and  post-mortem  findings. 
One  case. 

32  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

List  of  certain  or  probable  occurrences  of  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps — Continued. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Cattle    .  . 

France            .  

Leblanc  and    Freger 

One  case. 

Chamois  

Germany  

1907a. 
Rothl907c  

Do. 

Cattle 

England 

Pollock  1908a 

Horse  

Shetland 

White  1909a.  . 

One  case;    symptoms  of  gid  and 

Cow 

Germany 

Pfab  1909a     .   .  . 

recovery  of  parasite  by  operation. 
The  only  record  found  of  the  para- 

Sheep   

England  

Lloyd  1909a  

site  from  the  vertebral  canal  in 
this  host. 

Cattle 

Italy 

Vicariotto  1909a. 

Sheep  .  .  . 

Montana  and   Wash- 

Hall 1909a    .  . 

Goat  

ington,  D.  C. 
Missouri,  U.  S  

Doctor  Luckey  in  let- 

From personal  correspondence  with 

Cow  -  

Germany 

ter  of  July  21,  1909. 
Borstelmann  1910a  

Doctor  Luckey  already  noted. 
Bladderworm  the  size  of  pigeon  egg 

Cattle  

do  

Pfab  19ia<i  

in  medulla  oblongata;  probably 
M.  multiceps  from  size  and  loca- 
tion. 
Fifty-eight  operations  from  1903  to 

Sheep  

German      Southwest 

Scheben  1910a  

1909,  inclusive;   additional  cysts 
found  in  the  medulla  oblongata 
in  3  cases. 

Africa. 

A  reference  by  title  only  to  an  article  by  Gough  (1909a)  on  "A  Cccnurus  in  the  Duiker"  can  not  be  veri- 
fied at  this  time,  as  the  article  is  not  yet  available.  The  article  is  referred  to  here  on  the  likelihood  of  a 
coenurus  from  the  duiker  antelope  being  the  gid  parasite. 

In  the  foregoing  list  the  sheep,  cow,  goat,  horse,  chamois,  mouflon, 
gazelle,  and  some  antelope  forms — given  as  antelope,  African  ante- 
lope, Bubalis  sp.  and  Hippotragus  equinus  (?) — are  accepted  as  hosts 
of  Multiceps  multiceps. 

The  parasite  is  recorded  from  sheep  in  Greece,  Germany,  Switzer- 
land, England,  France,  Italy,  Ireland,  Holland,  Scotland,  Austria, 
Denmark,  Iceland,  Argentine  Republic,  Sardinia,  South  Australia, 
New  Zealand,  German  Southwest  Africa,  and  the  United  States.  Its 
presence  is  claimed  or  implied,  by  local  names  for  gid  or  otherwise, 
in  Hungary  by  Kuchenmeister  ( 1853e)  and  Cobbold  (1867o),  in  Cape 
Colony  by  Hellier  (1894a)  and  Hutcheon  (1904<r),  in  Chile  and  Spain 
by  Monfallet  (1899a),  and  in  Shetland  by  White  (1909 a). 

It  is  recorded  from  cattle  in  Switzerland,  Germany,  England,  Italy, 
France,  Iceland,  Denmark,  and  Cape  Colony. 

It  is  recorded  and  figured  from  the  goat  in  Holland  by  Numan 
(1850b);  it  was  experimentally  produced  in  this  host  in  France  at 
least  once  and  possibly  twice  by  Baillet  (1859b);  the  characteristic 
symptoms  and  post-mortem  findings  are  recorded  for  several  cases 
in  Cape  Colony  by  Buckley  (1904«);  and  on  the  strength  of  these 
records  the  following  have  been  accepted:  Jacques  and  Lafosse's 
(1854b)  case,  Youatt's  (1836rr)  "hydatid"  from  the  brain  of  a  goat 
with  symptoms  of  gid,  Klencke's  (1844a)  record  from  Germany, 
Hippocrates's(1825rr)  necessarily  uncertain  record  from  Greece,  and 
Doctor  Luckey' s  cases  recorded  here  from  the  United  States. 
Klencke  claims  to  have  produced  the  coenurus  by  an  absurd  inocula- 
tion experiment,  but  this  host  record  may  be  accepted  in  view  of 
the  possibility  that  he  inoculated  a  goat  already  infected  with  gid. 


HOSTS  AND  OCCURRENCES  OF  MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  33 

Doctor  Luckey's  cases  are  accepted  on  the  objective  grounds  that  the 
cases  seemed  to  be  gid  and  that  the  parasite  is  known  from  that  host 
and  has  been  found  in  this  country.  Baillet  (1859b)  says  that  gid 
has  often  been  seen  in  goats  by  veterinarians,  but  does  not  add  any 
particulars. 

Spinola  ( 1858b)  states  that  the  veterinary  school  at  Vienna  had  a 
specimen  of  the  gid  parasite  taken  from  the  spinal  cord  of  a  horse. 
Esse  and  his  associates  (ISGSnO  and  Keiper  and  his  associates  (1863<-r 
and  1864<r)  found  a  parasite  in  the  brain  of  a  horse  in  Prussia,  and  on 
the  strength  of  the  symptoms  concluded  that  it  was  a  cosnurus,  but 
they  apparently  did  not  study  the  parasite  to  see  what  it  was. 
Schwanefeld  (1885a)  states  that  he  found  a  cosnurus  containing 
one-sixteenth  of  a  liter  of  fluid  in  the  brain  of  a  horse  in  Germany. 
Youatt  (1834/?)  saw  a  horse  that  showed  symptoms  of  staggering; 
post-mortem  examination  disclosed  a  "hydatid"  in  the  septum 
lucidum.  White  (1909a)  operated  on  a  horse  that  showed  symptoms 
of  gid  and  extracted  a  cyst  from  the  brain.  On  the  combined  evi- 
dence the  above  cases  are  accepted,  as  well  as  those  of  Ammon, 
Bousset,  Frenzel,  and  Hof acker  as  given  by  Gurlt  ( 183 la)  and  Numan 
(1850b),  which  cases  are  covered  in  articles  not  at  present  available. 

Multiceps  multiceps  is  recorded  from  the  chamois  in  Switzerland 
by  Retzius  (1790a),  in  France  by  De  Blainville  (1824a),  in  three 
cases  in  Germany  by  Frauenfeld  (1868a),  and  in  one  case  by  Roth 
(1907c),  a  total  of  six  cases.  Frauenfeld  also  states  that  the  royal 
head  forester  had  noted  several  cases  of  gid  in  the  chamois  and  that 
the  disease  is  well  known  to  old  chamois  hunters. 

The  parasite  has  been  found  in  the  gazelle  in  France  by  Baillet 
(1859b)  and  in  Germany  by  Leisering  (1862a). 

It  has  been  found  in  the  antelope  by  Jacques  and  Lafosse  ( 1854b),  in 
Eippotragus  equinus  (?)  by  Rabe  ( 1889a) ,  in  Bubalis  sp.  by  Bertolus  and 
Chauveau  (1879a),  and  in  an  African  antelope  by  Rudolphi  (1808a). 

In  Rabe's  case  the  host  had  only  been  in  Germany  fourteen  days 
after  its  arrival  from  Africa,  and  Leisering's  host  animal  was  from  a 
zoological  park;  the  host  noted  by  Bertolus  and  Chauveau  had  been 
shipped  from  Africa  to  France,  and  Rudolphi's  antelope  is  specified 
as  African.  Gough's  (1909<r)  ccenurus,  alluded  to  on  page  32  is 
another  case  of  a  ccenurus  in  an  African  antelope.  These  facts 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  gid  parasite  is  not  uncommon  among 
the  Bovida3  of  Africa.  Nor  is  this  an  unreasonable  supposition. 
Varieties  of  native  sheep  and  species  of  antelope  are  so  distributed 
throughout  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe  that  there  is  practically  no 
break  in  the  geographic  distribution  of  host  species  between  the 
European  countries  known  to  be  infected  and  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
where  it  appears  from  the  records  of  Hellier  ( 1894a),  Buckley  ( 1904 <r), 
Robinson  (1905a),  and  Robertson  (1908^)  that  the  disease  also 
51674°— Bull.  125,  pt  1—10—5 


34 


THE   GID  PARASITE  AND   ALLIED   SPECIES. 


exists.  The  transmission  of  the  parasite  across  this  area,  if  indeed 
it  was  not  originally  distributed  from  Egypt,  or  the  valley  of  the 
Euphrates,  would  be  a  simple  matter  for  the  flocks  of  nomadic  shep- 
herds or  individual  hosts  of  the  adult  or  larval  parasite.  Scheben 
(1910<r)  states  that  gid  is  a  trouble  of  long  standing  in  German 
Southwest  Africa.  The  increasing  interest  in  the  parasite  fauna  of 
Africa  ought  to  result  in  additional  light  being  thrown  on  this  subject. 

Multiceps  multiceps  has  been  recorded  once  from  the  mouflon  in 
France  by  Gervais  (1847b).  Schrank's  (1788a)  statement  that  it 
occurs  in  the  mouflon  is  without  any  record  of  authority  or  of  per- 
sonal observation. 

The  above  list  shows  records  of  the  occurrence  of  Multiceps  multiceps 
more  than  eight  times  in  the  spinal  cord  of  sheep,  in  one  case  with  a 
simultaneous  infection  of  the  brain,  and  in  one  case  with  simultane- 
ous infection  of  the  brain  and  medulla  oblongata.  The  parasite  is 
twice  recorded  from  the  medulla  oblongata  alone  in  the  sheep  with  a 
total  of  three  cases.  It  must  be  much  more  common  in  these  loca- 
tions than  records  of  cases  show,  as  Frenzel  (1794a)  stated  over  a 
century  ago  that  the  parasite  occurs  in  the  brain,  medulla  oblongata, 
and  spinal  cord.  It  is  recorded  from  the  subcutaneous  tissue  of  the 
sheep  twice,  from  the  spinal  cord  of  the  horse  once,  from  the  spinal 
cord  of  the  cow  once,  from  the  medulla  oblongata  of  the  cow  four 
times,  and  from  the  brain,  thyroid,  lymph  glands,  and  musculature 
of  the  gazelle  once. 

If  from  the  above  list  of  certain  and  probable  occurrences  there  were 
selected  those  cases  where  it  is  certain  that  the  parasite  was  Multiceps 
multiceps,  on  the  basis  of  description,  figures,  and  feeding  experiments, 
the  certain  hosts  would  be  limited  to  the  sheep,  cow,  and  goat. 

In  the  following  list  are  shown  those  cases  where  a  record  is  based 
on  data  which  I  regard  as  inadequate,  or  where  the  author  himself 
has  considered  the  case  doubtful,  or  where  both  these  things  are  true : 

List  of  doubtful  cases  of  the  occurrence  of  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Reindeer     (  Cenvt 

Lapland  

HofTberg  1759a  

Symptoms  resemble  gid;    so  accepted 

tarandus). 
Giraffe       (Camelo- 

Not  given 

Rudolph!  1804a.  1810a. 

by  Braun  (1894a). 

pardali*  girafja). 

do 

Rudolphi  ISOSa  

Statement  that  hvdatids  are  rare  in  the 

Do 

...do... 

Gurlt  183la  

brain  of  the  horse. 
Brain  and  spinal  cord. 

Roe    deer    (  Cervus 

do  

Barthelemy  1839«  

Mere  statement;   accepted  by  Diesing 

copreoZtw). 
Sheeo 

Germany  

Jacob!  1882o... 

(1850a). 
Entire  flock  afflicted  with  spinal  gid. 

Pig  P 

Finland 

Kolster  1893a 

In  heart. 

Horse  

United  States  

Stiles  1898a  

Subcutaneous. 

Dog 

Italy  

Guerrini  1909a  

Given  in  list  of  museum  specimens. 

The  above  list  shows  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  reindeer, 
giraffe,  roe  deer,  pig,  and  dog  can  be  considered  as  hosts  of  Multiceps 
multiceps. 


DOUBTFUL  CASES   OF   MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  35 

In  the  historical  sketch  (p.  10)  the  necessity  for  considering  the  rein- 
deer a  doubtful  host  of  Multiceps  multiceps  has  already  been  shown. 
It  is  true  that  Diesing  (1850a)  lists  the  parasite  from  this  host,  credit- 
ing the  observation  to  Retzius,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  Retzius  (1790a) 
lists  the  parasite  from  Capra  rupicapra,  the  chamois,  and  not  from 
the  reindeer. 

Rudolphi  (1804a)  states  that  in  conversation  with  Le  Vaillant,  the 
latter  told  him  that  he  had  found  worms  in  the  brain  of  the  gazelle 
and  the  giraffe.  Later,  Rudolphi  (1810a)  lists  these  as  "  Wwnurus 
cerebralis"  from  the  gazelle,  and  "  Wcenurus"  from  Camelopardalis 
giraffa,  showing  that  he  himself  felt  very  doubtful  of  this  last  case. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  no  one  has  previously  or  since  recorded  a 
ccenurus  from  this  host,  and  that  Rudolphi  (1819a)  later  omits  the 
giraffe  from  his  list  of  hosts  of  this  parasite,  and  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  giraffe's  habit  of  feeding  largely  on  high-growing  foliage 
renders  it  little  likely  to  have  its  food  contaminated  by  the  feces  of 
the  known  hosts  of  the  adult  Multiceps  multiceps,  we  must  consider 
this  record  of  Le  Vaillant's  finding  very  doubtful. 

Rudolphi's  (1808a)  bare  statement  that  hydatids  in  the  brain  of 
the  horse  were  rare,  together  with  his  failure  to  list  his  Catnurus  cere- 
bralis  from  this  host  in  his  later  work  of  1810,  leaves  it  extremely 
doubtful  whether  he  knew  of  any  cases  of  the  occurrence  of  C.  cere- 
bralis  in  this  host. 

Gurlt  (183 la),  in  a  list  of  hosts  of  Multiceps  multiceps,  lists  it  from 
the  horse,  specifying  the  brain  and  spinal  cord  as  locations.  As  he 
gives  no  record  of  cases  and  no  authority  for  this  statement,  it  seems 
likely  that  he  was  reasoning  the  possibility  of  this  from  the  occur- 
rence of  the  parasite  in  both  locations  in  the  sheep. 

The  acceptance  of  the  roe  deer,  Cervus  capreolus,  as  a  host  of  Mul- 
ticeps multiceps  by  Diesing  (1850a)  and  by  subsequent  writers  is 
based  by  Diesing  and  by  such  writers  as  take  the  trouble  to  cite  an 
authority  on  Barthelemy  (1839a).  Barthelemy  states  that  gid 
occurs  in  sheep,  in  the  roe  deer,  and  in  other  animals.  He  does  not 
claim  to  have  seen  the  parasite  in  the  roe  deer,  nor  does  he  cite  any 
one  who  has,  hence  his  statement,  though  very  plausible,  is  not  con- 
vincing, and  this  record  must  also  be  held  doubtful. 

According  to  Jacobi  (1882«),  in  a  flock  of  400  yearling  lambs,  186 
died  with  coenuri  in  various  parts  of  the  spinal  cord,  but  no  co3nuri 
were  found  in  the  brain.  The  correctness  of  this  statement  seems 
questionable.  That  cumuri  should  be  found  in  the  spinal  cord  in  a 
great  number  of  sheep  would  be  surprising;  that  none  should  be 
found  in  the  brain  at  the  same  time  is  scarcely  to  be  believed.  Pos- 
sibly the  disease  in  question  was  hydro-rhachitis  and  serum  accu- 
mulations in  various  parts  of  the  cord  were  mistaken  for  coenuri. 

Kolster  (1893a)  found  several  vesicles,  each  having  several  heads, 
under  the  pericardium  of  a  pig.  He  could  not  decide  whether  it  was 


36 


T1IE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED   SPECIES. 


the  larva  of  Tsenia  ccenurus  or  of  some  other  Tsenia  having  a  coenurus 
larva.  I  consider  this  case  extreme.lv  doubtful.  If  Multiceps  multi- 
ceps  could  develop  in  the  pig,  it  seems  likely  that  it  would  not  be 
altogether  uncommon,  and  hence  would  have  been  reported  hereto- 
fore. Furthermore,  the  location  is  an  unlikely  one  for  this  parasite. 
As  the  specimen  in  question  does  not  seem  to  have  had  the  study 
necessary  for  an  identification,  we  are  compelled  to  include  the  pig 
among  the  doubtful  hosts  of  Multiceps  multiceps. 

In  discussing  gid  in  the  United  States,  we  have  already  considered 
Stiles's  (1898a)  record  of  subcutaneous  cccnurus  in  the  horse. 

Guerrini  (1909a),  in  a  list  of  the  parasite  specimens  in  the  collec- 
tion of  the  veterinary  college  at  Bologna,  lists  Coenurus  cerebralis 
Rud.  from  Bos  taurus  (meninges)  and  Canis  familiaris  (meninges). 
The  adult  worm,  Tsenia  ccenurus  Kiichenm.,  is  also  listed  from  Canis 
familiaris  (intestinum).  Such  a  record  of  Caenurus  cerebralis  from 
the  meninges  of  the  dog  must  ncessarily  be  looked  upon  with  doubt. 
When  an  extremely  unusual  or  unlikely  thing  is  recorded,  the 
acceptance  of  the  record  must  depend  upon  the  evidence.  The 
reliability  of  the  collector,  the  accuracy  of  the  person  identifying  the 
specimen,  the  features  on  which  the  identification  was  made,  and 
the  validity  of  the  label,  are  all  matters  which  should  be  made  known. 
No  evidence  is  furnished  in  this  case,  and  hence  the  record  of  such  a 
parasite  in  the  dog  can  not  be  accepted  without  reservation. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  wrriter  all  records  of  the  giraffe,  the  roe  deer, 
the  pig,  and  the  dog  as  hosts  of  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps  should 
be  thrown  out,  as  they  are  all  probably  erroneous. 

The  following  list  includes  those  cases  where  the  records  show 
undoubted  errors. 

List  of  the  erroneous  records  of  the  occurrence  of  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Man      

Not  given  

Rolfinck  l()56a  

Claims  to  have  seen  a  case. 
Produced  by  injection  of  rotten  coenu- 
rus  in  veins. 
Produced  by  inoculation  of  rotten  coen- 
urus on  brain. 
Misprint  or  based  on  mistranslation. 
Based  on  Aran  (1841a). 
Based  on  Retzius  (1790a). 

Based  on  De  Blalnville  (1824a). 
Based  on  Leblond  (1837a). 

In  spinal  cord. 

Yon  Nathusiiis's  subcutaneous  speci- 
men from  sheep  erroneously  listed. 
Subcutaneous;  error  as  above. 
Do. 

Dog 

England  .  . 

Moorcroft  1792a  

Rabbit  (?) 

Not  given  

Laennec  1804a  

Rabbit 

do 

Cloquet  1818a 

Do 

France 

Le  blond  1837a  . 

Man 

Germany  

Klencke  1844a.  . 

Doe  .. 

do."  

do  

Rabbit..    . 

do.  

do  

Cat. 

do  

Nunian  1850b... 

Camel  

Not  given  

do  

Iteindeer     (Genius 
tarandm}. 
Camel       (  Camtlus 
dromedarius). 
Rabbit  

do  

Diesing  1850a  

do  
..  do... 

Diesing  ISSOa  et  al  
...do... 

"Ex  Ipalacis  capen- 
sis.'1 
Pig  

Port  Natal  

do  

Not  given  

Veterinarian  1855o  

Kuch.s  l$59a. 

Cow             ... 

do 

Spalaz  capensis  
Cow  

Port  Natal... 

Diesing  1864a  

Not  given  

Pagenstecher  1877a  

Von  Linstow  1878a  
Moniez  ISSOa... 

Do... 

...do... 

Do... 

...do... 

ERRONEOUS  RECORDS  OF   MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  37 

List  of  the  erroneous  records  of  the  occurrence  of  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps — Cont'd. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Cow  . 

Not  given 

Leuckart  188Cd 

Same   error   as   Pagenstecher   (1877a) 

Goose 

do... 

Neumann  1888a. 

above. 
Based  on  Hering  (ISCla). 

Cow. 

.do  

Railliet  1893a  

Same  error   as    Pagenstecher   (1877a) 

Horse  

Germany  

...do... 

above. 
In  eye;  based  on  Heincke  (1882a). 

San  bur        (  Cervus 

Not  given 

Hassall  1898a 

In  list. 

unicolor). 
Cow                   .  . 

...do... 

Vaullegeard  1901a  

In  eye. 

Antelope  

...do... 

do...'  

bo. 

Camel  

do  

Espejo   y    Del   Rosal 

Based  on  Lafosse. 

1905/9. 

The  weight  of  evidence  indicates  that  there  are  no  certain,  proba- 
ble, or  reasonably  doubtful  cases  of  the  occurrence  of  Multiceps  mul- 
ticeps in  the  larval  state  in  man,  the  cat,  rabbit,  camel,  sanbur,  goose, 
or  the  hypothetical  "  Ipalax  capensis."  It  is  also  reasonably  certain 
that  Moorcroft  (1792a)  and  Klencke  (1844a)  have  erred  in  recording 
Coenurus  from  the  dog;  that  Retzius  did  not  find  a  coenurus  in 
Cervus  tarandus,  as  Diesing  (1850a)  credits  him  with  doing;  that  the 
record  of  Multiceps  multiceps  from  the  spinal  cord  of  the  cow  given 
by  Fuchs  (1859a)  is  not  based  on  an  actual  case;  that  M.  multiceps 
has  not  been  found  in  a  subcutaneous  location  in  the  same  host  as 
Pagenstecher  (1877a),  VonLinstow  (1878a),  Moniez  (1880a),  Leuckart 
(1886d),  and  Railliet  (1893a)  give  it;  that  Heincke's  (1882a)  parasite 
from  the  eye  of  the  horse  was  not  a  ccenurus  as  Railliet  (1893a) 
states,  and  that  M.  multiceps  is  not  known  from  the  eye  of  the  cow 
and  of  the  antelope,  as  Vaullegeard  (1901a)  states. 

Rolfinck  (1856a)  refers  to  a  vertigo  caused  by  vesicles  full  of 
water  and  serous  humor  in  the  brain  of  sheep  and  of  man.  Un- 
doubtedly he  refers  to  gid  and  its  parasite  in  sheep,  but  the  vertigo 
referred  to  in  man  has  been  found  to  be  due  to  Cysticercus  cellulose 
and  Echinococcus  granulosus  in  those  cases  where  the  most  compe- 
tent scientists  have  investigated  the  parasite.  Klencke's  (1844a) 
statement  that  he  has  seen  a  ccenurus  in  the  brain  of  man  does  not 
of  itself  give  sufficient  data  on  which  to  reject  the  finding,  but  a 
study  of  Klencke's  work,  in  which  he  claims  to  have  repeatedly 
produced  ccenurus  in  various  hosts  by  inoculation  of  coenurus  par- 
ticles, shows  that  his  statements  are  not  reliable,  and  for  this  reason 
his  quite  improbable  claim  of  the  occurrence  of  ccenurus  in  man  is 
thrown  out.  Gervais  and  van  Beneden  (1859b)  have  stated  that 
Klencke's  statements  do  not  merit  confidence. 

In  his  nomenclature  of  diseases  of  man,  Bertillon  (19030-)  lists 
Ccenure  under  diseases  of  the  digestive  tract,  and  the  Commission 
Internationale  (1909o-),  in  its  revision  of  the  same  work,  has  retained 
this  listing.  As  the  records  indicate,  there  are  probably  no  cases 
of  ccenurus  in  man.  Whether  such  cases  have  occurred  or  not, 


38  THE   GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

there  are  no  good  grounds  for  listing  coenurus  or  cysticercus  us 
intestinal  parasites,  as  Bertillon  and  the  commission  have  done. 

Moorcroft  (1792a)  states  that  anatomists  and,  to  a  still  greater 
extent,  butchers  and  shepherds,  have  long  known  of  collections  of 
colorless  fluid  in  thin  capsules  in  the  brain  of  sheep  and  cows,  and 
adds:  "They  have  been  met  with  in  dogs." 

The  larval  cestodes  of  dogs  include,  according  to  various  authors, 
Cysticercus  and  Echinococcus.  Von  Linstow  (1889a)  lists  a  Coenurus 
sp.  from  the  dog,  attributing  it  to  Pagenstecher,  but  Pagenstecher 
(1877a),  in  the  reference  cited,  refers  to  a  growth  on  the  neck  of 
Myopotamus  coypus,  which  he  says  might  have  been  a  growth  of 
a  cystoid  or  colloid  nature  such  as  is  found  in  dogs,  but  which  he 
finds  to  be  a  coenurus.  Klencke  (1844a)  claims  to  have  produced 
a  ccenurus  in  the  dog  by  injecting  rotten  coenurus  into  its  veins,  a 
claim  so  absurd  as  to  at  once  discredit  his  findings.  Guerrini's 
(1909#)  record  of  a  museum  specimen  has  already  been  mentioned 
as  doubtful.  There  are,  therefore,  no  adequate  and  reliable  refer- 
ences to  a  coenurus  from  the  dog,  and  as  it  is  on  the  face  of  it 
highly  improbable  that  the  larval  Multiceps  multiceps  would  occur 
in  the  dog,  we  may  throw  out  Moorcroft's  casual  reference. 

Lsennec  (1804a)  states  that  the  gid  parasite  occurs  in  the  sheep, 
the  cow,  and  perhaps  in  the  rabbit.  The  last  host  is  included  on  the 
basis  of  hunters'  statements  that  they  have  seen  gid  in  rabbits. 
Moniez  (1880a)  says  he  has  seen  such  a  case  of  gid  in  the  rabbit,  but 
it  was  not  due  to  a  coenurus,  and  Laennec  admits  that  no  one  had 
ever  seen  the  parasite  in  such  cases. 

Cloquet  (1818a),  in  an  article  which  appears  to  be  an  abstract  of 
Lsennec  (1804a  or  1812a),  has  made  a  positive  statement  of  Lsennec's 
tentative  inclusion  of  the  rabbit  as  a  host  of  the  gid  parasite. 

Leblond  (1837a)  notes  that  Lsennec  (1812a)  did  not  know  of  any 
vesicular  worms  from  the  brain  of  the  rabbit,  and  describes  a  cyst 
taken  from  the  vertebral  canal  of  a  rabbit  by  Dr.  Emmanuel  Rous- 
seau and  sent  to  Leblond,  who  finds  it  to  be  Coenurus  cerebralis.  De 
Blainville  (1828a)  had  previously  described  a  coenurus,  which  he 
calls  an  Echinococcus,  from  the  peritoneal  cavity  of  a  rabbit.  This 
and  subsequent  records  of  the  sort  have  been  usually,  and  probably 
correctly,  taken  as  cases  of  Multiceps  serialis,  which  was  described 
as  a  separate  species  by  Gervais  (1847a).  Gervais  and  van  Beneden 
(1859b)  have  examined  Leblond's  specimen  and  think  it  is  not  C. 
cerebralis.  Klencke  (1844a)  claims  to  have  produced  a  coenurus  in 
the  rabbit  brain  by  inoculating  the  brain  with  bits  of  rotten  coenurus, 
but  such  a  claim  settles  that  his  record  has  no  right  to  recognition. 

Numan  (1850b)  states  that  Engelmeyer  in  1850  recorded  the 
presence  of  a  coenurus  in  the  liver  of  a  cat,  and  as  Numan  treats  of 
only  one  species  of  crenurus,  the  inference  is  that  this  was  an  infection 


DISCUSSION   OF   ERRONEOUS   RECORDS.  39 

with  Multiceps  multiceps,  which,  however,  would  be  a  highly  improb- 
able occurrence.  Engelmeyer's  article  is  not  available  for  verifica- 
tion, but  Neumann  (1893i)  has  attempted  to  verify  this  record  and 
finds  that  Engelmeyer's  case  is  a  quite  ordinary  record  of  Echinococcus 
in  the  liver  of  a  cow.  According  to  Neumann,  the  error  arose  from 
Numan  writing  "kat"  instead  of  "koe."  Neumann  criticises 
Cobbold  for  translating  Numan's  "Veelkop"  as  Coenurus  instead  of 
Polijcephalus.  The  criticism  seems  hardly  fair  to  Cobbold,  as 
Numan  uses  Coenurus,  Polycephalus,  and ' '  Veelkop  "  interchangeably  to 
mean  one  and  the  same  thing,  i.  e.,  the  gid  parasite.  And  at  the  point 
in  question,  Engelmeyer's  case  is  cited  to  show  that  the  "Veelkop" 
is  not  confined  to  the  brain  and  spinal  cord.  Had  Numan  intended 
to  include  Echinococcus  in  his  discussion  of  "Veelkop,"  he  would 
hardly  have  referred  to  one  case  from  the  liver  as  an  exception  to 
the  rule  that  it  occurs  regularly  in  the  nervous  system,  as  the  reverse 
would  be  true  for  Echinococcus.  It  is  probable  that  Numan  has 
erred  in  including  Engelmeyer's  case  in  the  way  he  did,  and  certain 
that  he  quoted  it  wrongly. 

Diesing  (1850a)  and  many  subsequent  writers  have  listed  Multi- 
ceps multiceps  from  the  camel,  the  authority,  where  given  at  all,  being 
usually  De  Blainville  (1824a).  By  a  coincidence,  or  by  one  author 
misleading  the  other,  Numan  (1850b)  in  the  same  year  assisted  in 
strengthening  Diesing's  error  by  also  listing  the  parasite  from  the 
camel,  basing  the  statement  on  De  Blainville's  case  in  Aran  (184 la). 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  Aran  says  that  De  Blainville  found  the  parasite 
in  a  chamois,  and  De  Blainville  himself  says  it  was  a  chamois.  The 
explanation  appears  to  be  that  either  Diesing  or  Numan  or  both  of 
them  confused  "chamois"  and  "chameau,"  or  perhaps  the  printer 
did.  Espejo  y  del  Rosal  (1905/?)  says  that  Lafosse  saw  the  gid 
parasite  in  the  camel.  Lafosse  (1854b)  has  noted  gid  in  the  sheep 
and  (Jacques  and  Lafosse,  1854b)  in  the  antelope,  but  never  in  the 
camel  so  far  as  available  records  show.  At  any  rate,  there  is  no 
authority  at  hand  for  listing  the  camel  as  a  host  of  Multiceps  multiceps. 

It  has  already  been  shown  (p.  35)  that  Diesing  (1850a)  erred  in 
crediting  Retzius  withjisting  Multiceps  multiceps  from  Cervus  taran- 
dus,  as  Retzius  (1790a)  records  it  from  the  chamois,  not  the  reindeer. 

Diesing  (1850a)  also  states  that  what  is  probably  a  specimen  of 
Coenurus  cerebralis  is  known  "Ex  Ipalacis  capensis."  There  is  no 
mammal  genus  from  which  the  genitive  "Ipalacis"  could  be  derived, 
and  Diesing  (1864a)  has  later  given  the  name  as  Spalax  capensis,  in 
this  case  merely  calling  the  parasite  a  ccenurus.  Von  Linstow 
(1878a)  lists  the  host  as  Georhynchus  capensis,  and  it  seems  likely 
that  the  ccenurus  in  question  was  taken  from  this  host,  the  generic 
name  of  which  is  properly  Georychus,  according  to  Palmer  (1904a). 
The  true  Spalax  does  not  occur  in  the  locality  given.  From  such  a 


40  THE   GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

host  as  this  rodent  it  is  altogether  unlikely  that  the  parasite  was 
Multiceps  multiceps. 

A  writer  in  the  Veterinarian  (1855<*)  states  that  Cwnurus  cerebralis 
is  found  in  the  brain  of  the  sheep,  ox,  horse,  pig,  and  man.  There 
is  no  citation  of  authorities  or  cases  to  back  the  assertion,  and  it  is 
evident  that  the  pig  is  included  here  through  error.  Kolster's  ( 1803a) 
doubtful  case  has  already  been  discussed. 

Fuchs  (1859a)  lists  the  gid  parasite  from  the  sheep,  cow,  and 
horse,  specifying  the  brain  and  spinal  cord  in  all  cases.  It  seems 
quite  evident  that  there  was  nothing  but  the  possibility  of  its  occur- 
rence in  the  spinal  cord  of  the  cow  to  justify  this  statement,  and  as 
no  record  of  such  an  occurrence  seems  to  have  been  made  until  half 
a  century  later,  this  statement  may  be  rejected. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  (p.  31)  that  Von  Nathusius's  case,  as 
given  by  Leisering  (1862a),  who  reported  it,  was  one  of  subcuta- 
neous coenurus  in  the  sheep.  Pagenstecher  ( 1877a),  Moniez  ( 1880a), 
Leuckart  (1886d),  and  Railliet  (1893a)  have  erred  in  reporting  this 
from  the  calf  or  ox.  Von  Linstow  (1878a)  has  perhaps  followed 
Pagenstecher  in  listing  C.  cerebralis  from  under  the  skin  in  the  cow. 

Neumann  ( 1888a)  devotes  a  paragraph  to  gid  in  the  goose,  quoting 
Hering's  (ISGloO  case,  and  stating  that  the  tumor  found  on  the  brain 
was  considered  as  a  dead  and  atrophied  hydatid.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  Hering  says  that  a  mass  without  membranous  structure,  as  is 
often  the  case  in  shriveled  bladderworms,  was  found  in  the  left 
hemisphere  of  the  cerebrum,  but  nowhere  a  hydatid. 

Railliet  (1893a)  states  that  the  coenurus  found  by  Heincke  in  the 
eye  of  a  horse  is  usually  referred  to  Ccenurus  cerebralis.  Heincke 
(1882a),  according  to  a  secretary's  abstract,  found  a  bladderworm 
in  the  eye  of  a  foal.  Under  the  microscope  the  worm  showed  a  hook 
circlet.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  cestode  was  a  coenurus, 
and  as  the  description  would  fit  Cysticercus  cellulosse,  known  as  a 
parasite  of  the  eye  and  of  the  horse,  it  seems  more  reasonable  to  con- 
sider it  as  this  than  to  assume,  contrary  to  the  evidence  of  the  one 
circlet  of  hooks,  that  we  had  here  a  coenurus  in  an  organ  nowhere 
authentically  recorded  as  a  site  of  C.  cerebrali§,  and  in  a  host  which 
is  none  too  certainly  listed  as  a  host  of  coenurus.  Neumann  (18SSa) 
considers  Heincke's  form  a  cysticercus. 

Hassall  (1898a),  in  a  list  of  hosts  and  parasites,  records  Ccenurus 
cerebralis  from  the  sanbur,  Cervus  unicolor.  As  no  authority  is 
given,  and  as  no  such  record  is  to  be  found,  the  case  appears  to  be  an 
error. 

Similarly,  Vaullegeard's  (1901a)  record  of  the  same  parasite  from 
the  eye  of  the  cow  and  of  the  antelope  is  without  authority  or  record 
of  cases  and  is  rejected  as  improbable  and  devoid  of  evidence. 


OCCURRENCES   OF   ADULT   MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  41 

THE    OCCURRENCES    OF    THE    ADULT    MULTICEPS    MULTICEPS. 

So  far  as  the  writer  is  aware,  the  dog  is  the  only  known  host  of  the 
adult  Multiceps  multiceps.  Von  Linstow  (1878a)  lists  Tsenia  ccenu- 
rus  from  Canis  lagopus,  but  the  three  authorities  referred  to  by  him 
in  this  connection,  Diesing  (1864a  and  1864b),  Leuckart  (1856a),  and 
Krabbe  (1865e),  do  not  mention  it.  Railliet  (1893a)  states  that 
Mobius  found  T.  ccenurus  in  Vulpes  lagopus,  but  no  reference  is 
given,  and  I  have  been  unable  to  verify  this  statement.  Hence  the 
blue  fox  must  be  considered  a  doubtful  host  of  Multiceps  multiceps. 

Ilering  (1873a)  fed  a  common  red  fox,  Canis  vulpes,  with  larval 
Multiceps  multiceps  on  three  occasions  and  once  fed  two  Cysticercus 
tenuicollis.  The  fox  passed  numerous  proglottids,  but  when  finally 
killed  post-mortem  examination  showed  only  three  tapeworms  2  to  3 
inches  long.  According  to  Hering,  these  were  T.  ccenurus.  They 
seemed  to  be  when  compared  with  other  specimens  on  naked-eye 
examination.  Further,  the  fox  had  been  fed  for  a  year  and  a  half 
on  horse  meat,  and  three  tapeworms  could  not  have  arisen  from  two 
cysticerci.  However,  there  were  42  to  48  hooks  instead  of  28  to  36, 
and  the  large  hooks  measured  0.65  mm.  long.  Such  a  hook  measure- 
ment is  four  times  the  average  for  Multiceps  multiceps,  and  if  cor- 
rectly given  would  make  it  quite  certain  that  the  cestode  in  question 
was  not  M.  multiceps.  The  uncertainty  is  such  that  Canis  vulpes 
must  be  considered  a  doubtful  host  of  M.  multiceps  in  this  case. 

Braun  (1894a)  gives  a  reference  to  Fiirstenburg  (1858a),  not  avail- 
able to  the  writer,  and  states  that  Fiirstenburg  fed  Co&nurus  cere- 
bralis  and  Cysticercus  tenuicollis  to  dogs  and  foxes  and  recovered 
tapeworms  45  to  50  inches  long  from  the  dogs  and  one-fourth  to  7 
inches  long  from  the  foxes.  It  is  uncertain  from  this  statement 
whether  the  tapeworms  in  the  foxes  included  Tsenia  ccenurus  or  not. 

All  other  statements  that  the  fox  is  a  host  of  this  parasite  appear 
to  be  mere  assumption,  without  case  or  authority  to  support  them. 

The  assertion  or  assumption  that  the  wolf  is  a  host  of  M.  multiceps, 
made  by  Kiichenmeister  (1853e),  Von  Siebold  (1854b),  Bourcier 
(1859a),  Gervais  and  Van  Beneden  (1859b),  Baillet  (1866b),  and 
numerous  others,  is  likewise  without  cases  or  authority  to  support  it, 
and  the  wolf  can  not  even  be  listed  as  a  doubtful  host  so  far  as  the 
records  go.  In  view  of  the  close  relationship  of  wolves  to  the  dog, 
however,  it  is  very  probable  that  they  may  serve  as  hosts  of  the 
adult  gid  parasite. 

Equally  devoid  of  basis,  so  far  as  actual  records  are  concerned, 
are  the  claims  made  or  suggested  for  the  martin  by  Von  Siebold 
(1854b),  Putz  (1882«),  and  Dewitz  (1892b),  for  the  coyote  by  Cur- 
tice (1890c),  Burch  (1893a),  and  Shaw  (1901a),  and  for  the  polecat 
byDewitz(1892b). 


42 


THE   G1D  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 


liailliet  (1893a)  states  that  he  has  been  unable  to  infect  the  cat. 

The  writer  has  personally  examined  tapeworms  from  coyotes  and 
other  wolves  trapped  in  Montana,  but  has  not  found  M.  muUiceps. 
Doctor  McClure,  in  a  letter  of  December  5,  1906,  to  Doctor  Melvin, 
says  he  has  examined  two  coyotes  in  Montana  and  found  no  intestinal 
parasites. 

The  following  list  includes  all  records  found  of  the  occurrence  of 
the  adult  MuUiceps  multiceps  not  produced  by  feeding  experiments 
and  many  of  the  cases  where  it  has  been  produced  by  experiment. 
In  the  case  of  the  latter  some  effort  has  been  made  to  avoid  duplica- 
tion, due  to  translations,  later  editions,  etc.  The  list  does  not  include 
those  cases  where  the  occurrence  of  the  parasite  is  merely  claimed. 

List  of  recorded  occurrences  of  the  adult  Multiceps  multiceps  in  the  dog. 


Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Germany 

Von  Siebold  1862a  

By  experiment. 

Do 

Kiichenmeister  18538    

Do. 

Do  

Haubner  1854b      

Do. 

Do  

Von  Siebold  1854b  

Do. 

Do  

Kiichenmeister  1855f  

By  experiment;  first  trihedral  specimen. 

(?)  

Fiirstenburg  1858a  .   .  . 

By  experiment;  according  to  Braun  (1894a). 

Germany  

Bering  1859a  

By  experiment. 

France 

Baillet  1859b 

Do. 

England  

Gamgee  1859a  

Do. 

France      

Pouchet  and  Verrier  1862b.  . 

Do. 

Denmark  

Krabbe  1862a  

Found  in  4  out  of  185  dogs. 

France  

Milne-Edwards    and    Vail- 

By  experiment. 

Denmark  

lant  1863a. 
Krabbe  1865d  .  . 

Found  in  5  out  of  500  dogs. 

Iceland  

do                       ... 

Found  in  18  out  of  100  dogs. 

Faroe  Islands  

do             

Rare. 

England  

Cobbold  18670  

By  experiment;  never  otherwise. 

Germany... 
Italy 

Bering  1873a  
Perroncito  1877cc 

By  experiment. 
Do. 

France  

Bertolus  and  Chauveau  1879a 

Found  in  1  out  of  84  dogs. 

Germany  

Leuckart  1880b  

By  experiment;  a  trihedral  specimen  and  1  with  geni- 

Do       .... 

Schone  1886a..  . 

talia  reversed. 
Found  in  1  out  of  100  dogs. 

Switzerland  

Zschokke  1887a  

Found  in  3  out  of  177  dogs. 

France  

Neumann  1888a  

Not  stated. 

Germany  

Deflke  1891a  

Found  in  1  out  of  200  dogs;  also  by  experiment. 

United  States. 

Curtice  1892g 

This  is  an  error;  see  p.  21. 

Do  

Ward  18%b  

Ward  (1897b)  and  Stiles  (1898a)  think  this  is  M.  seri- 

Germany  

Lehner  1897a  

alis. 
Found  in  4  dogs. 

Italy  

Calamida  1901C  . 

Not  stated. 

Scotland  
Germany  

Lawl903a  
Johne  1904f  

By  experiment  in  18C4  or  1865;   date  and  place  fur- 
nished me  in  personal  communication  of  July  2, 
1909. 
By  experiment;  a  trihedral  specimen. 

Australia  

Brown  1902a  

Not  available;  cited  from  Sweet  1909a. 

United  States  

Balll909a  

By  experiment. 

France  

Henry  1909a  

Dog  died  of  intestinal  obstruction  due  to  mass  of  Mul- 

United States  

Taylor  and  Boynton  1910a... 

ticeps  mvMiceps. 
One  specimen  said  to  have  been  produced  by  feeding 

Do  

Hall  19100  

cocnurus. 
This  article. 

ECONOMIC    IMPORTANCE    OF   GID. 


In  the  seventeenth  century  Scultetus  (1672a)  notes  that  gid  was 
common  enough  then  in  Germany  to  be  known  among  the  peasantry 
under  the  name  of  "Wirbling."  In  the  eighteenth  century  Wepfer 
(1724<r)  says  it  was  a  common  disease  of  cattle  in  Switzerland. 
Maillet  ( 1836a)  says  it  is  more  common  in  southern  than  in  northern 


ECONOMIC   IMPORTANCE   OF  GID.  43 

France.  Von  Siebold  (1854b)  states  that  gid  is  not  rare  in  cattle  in 
south  Germany,  especially  Bavaria,  but  that  it  is  scarcely  known  in 
north  Germany,  and  Ziirn  (1882o-)  says  it  causes  great  loss  among 
sheep  in  south  Germany.  Krabbe  (1865d)  found  the  adult  parasite 
very  common  in  dogs  in  Iceland,  and  the  gid  disease  must  have  been 
very  common,  as  he  says,  for  the  cystic  stage  is  much  more  commonly 
found  than  the  adult.  Cobbold  (1867o)  says  the  disease  is  not 
important  in  England,  but  is  in  Hungary,  though  later  Heatley 
( 1884<r)  says  that  gid  is  very  common  in  England.  Wernicke  ( 1886a) 
states  that  the  parasite  is  viewed  with  alarm  in  the  Argentine  Repub- 
lic. Moller  ( 1891  a)  says  coenurus  is  common  in  cattle  at  the  Salzburg 
slaughterhouses,  and  is  not  rare  in  Steiermark,  Karnten,  Tyrol,  Bu- 
kownia,  andDalmatia.  Scheben  (1910or)  saysthat  gid  is  an  old  trouble 
in  German  Southwest  Africa,  often  becoming  conspicuous  by  its  dam- 
age to  sheep  breeding,  and  now  and  then  occurring  as  an  epizootic. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  that  while  gid  enjoys  a  wide  distri- 
bution, there  are  some  districts  which  appear  to  favor  the  disease,  and 
in  these  places  there  is  a  constant  and  considerable  economic  loss  from 
the  disease.  How  great  that  loss  is  may  be  judged  from  a  few  figures. 

Youatt  (1834a)  says  that  at  least  900,000  sheep  die  annually  of  gid 
in  France.  (Most  authors  quote  Youatt  as  saying  a  million  sheep, 
but  I  have  not  found  this  statement.)  Belhomme  ( 1838a)  says  that 
in  some  years  gid  attacks  one-fifth  to  one-fourth  of  a  flock.  Bar- 
thelemy  (1839<r)  says  not  less  than  one-fifth  of  the  lambs  suffer 
from  gid  in  France.  Reynal  ( 1852or)  notes  the  loss  of  50  out  of  a 
flock  of  110  lambs  from  this  disease,  and  Clok  (1868o-)  notes  Kuers's 
case,  where  200  out  of  400  died  of  gid.  Reynal  ( 1857a)  states  that  gid 
attacks  from  one-tenth  to  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  sheep  in  some 
places.  Von  Siebold  (1854b)  says  gid  kills  more  than  10  per  cent  in 
some  flocks.  Clok  (186800  says  the  average  yearly  loss  from  gid  is 
5  to  6  per  cent,  and  that  in  Germany  it  may  kill  70  per  cent  of  the 
lambs.  Heitzmann  ( 1868a)  says  that  at  Rohrdorf  50  to  60  head  of 
cattle  die  in  some  years.  Dixon  ( 18830-)  says  that  before  the  fencing 
in  of  sheep  runs  began  in  South  Australia  it  was  not  unusual  for  2 
per  cent  of  the  hoggets  to  die  of  "crankiness,"  or  gid.  Neumann 
(1892a)  states  that  Gasparin  put  the  loss  in  Germany  at  15  per  1,000 
the  first  year,  5  the  second,  2  the  third,  and  1  the  fourth.  Armatage 
(1895)  says  of  gid:  "The  annual  losses  are  about  10  per  cent.  It 
always  prevails  in  some  districts,  particularly  in  Scotland."  Not 
long  ago  Penberthy  (1906oO  noted  a  case  in  England  where  300 
out  of  400  lambs  died  of  gid  inside  of  four  months.  Numan  ( 1850b) 
says  that  gid  is  not  as  common  in  Holland  as  in  some  countries,  and 
claims  that  Tessier  put  the  loss  in  France  at  5  per  cent,  and  that  Kuers 
in  1840  stated  the  loss  in  Germany  as  no  less  than  this.  Diem  ( 19060-) 
points  out  that  with  existing  values  gid  in  cattle  causes  an  appreciable 


44  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

loss,  and  notes  instances  where  the  values  of  cattle  successfully  oper- 
ated on  increased  over  their  slaughter  value  as  giddy  animals  from  35 
and  55  to  485  marks.  Vollrath  (1905a)  states  that  during  the  winter 
and  spring  of  1904-5  there  were  one  or  two  cases  weekly  among 
cattle  at  Uttenweiler.  Pfab  (1910^)  notes  two  cases  where  cattle 
breeders  lost  an  entire  year's  increase ;  in  one  case  8  animals  out  of 
8,  and  in  another  12  out  of  12.  He  records  a  total  of  58  operations 
on  cattle  in  the  years  1903  to  1909,  inclusive,  with  34  cures.  The 
figures  already  given  for  the  United  States,  and  the  writer's  personal 
investigation  in  Montana,  show  losses  of  2  or  3  to  10  per  cent  among 
some  Montana  flocks,  and  such  a  loss  in  a  State  where  sheep  are  rated 
by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  °  of  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  at  $4.20  a  head  is  worth  considering.  It  appears  that 
the  loss  in  Montana  amounts  to  SI 0,000  in  some  years,  and  is  at  all 
times  a  steady  drain  on  the  flocks. 

It  is  evident  from  these  figures  that  gid  is  really  a  dangerous  and 
important  disease.  It  has  held  its  own  for  centuries  in  civilized 
Europe.  Nearly  a  century  ago,  Bosc  (1816a)  said  it  was  notable  for 
the  loss  of  sheep  which  it  occasioned.  Later  Eschricht  (1840b) 
speaks  of  it  as  a  plague.  Kuers  in  1840,  according  to  Numan  ( 1850b), 
classed  it  as  one  of  the  three  most  important  diseases  of  lambs. 
Eschricht  (1841g)  says  it  "often  rages  *  *  *  as  a  virulent  conta- 
gion." Clok  ( 1868<r)  says  it  may  be  regarded  as  producing  the  greatest 
comparative  loss  of  all  sheep  diseases.  Van  Beneden(1889a)  says  "  The 
coenurus  of  the  sheep  is  a  true  calamity  when  it  spreads  in  a  country." 
Dewitz  (1892b)  says  gid  is  the  most  important  parasitic  disease  of  sheep 
around  Berlin.  In  Germany  the  Government  was  trying  to  stamp 
out  the  disease  before  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  and  Kuchen- 
meister  was  working  under  a  government  grant  when  he  demon- 
strated the  complete  life  cycle  of  the  parasite  in  1853. 

The  sheep  is  conspicuous  for  its  comparative  freedom  from  bac- 
terial diseases,  a  fact  especially  noticeable  at  this  time,  when  the  cow 
and  other  animals  are  being  called  to  account  in  the  tuberculosis 
campaign.  But  the  sheep  is  equally  conspicuous  for  its  suscepti- 
bility to  animal  parasites,  and  of  these  the  gid  parasite  is  one  of 
the  most  deadly.  In  this  country  gid  is  not  as  widespread  as  infec- 
tion with  the  stomach  worm,  Hsemonchus  contortus,  nor  is  it  so  gen- 
eral throughout  the  flocks  it  attacks  as  scab.  At  the  same  time, 
the  stomach  worm  at  its  worst  can  not  claim  anything  like  the 
approximate  100  per  cent  lethality  of  the  gid  parasite,  and  the 
scab  parasite  is  readily  eliminated  by  a  rather  simple  routine  treat- 
ment, not  comparable  to  the  delicate  and  uncertain  surgical  treat- 
ment necessary  to  relieve  a  sheep  of  the  brain  parasite.  Unlike 

oGrop  Reporter,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  vol.  12,  no.  2,  February,  1910. 


ECONOMIC   IMPORTANCE   OF  GID.  45 

bacteria,  animal  parasites  show  little  preference  in  attacking  weak 
or  poor  animals,  and  gid  probably  selects  its  victims  oftener  from 
strong,  vigorous  sheep  and  with  less  regard  to  the  care  given  them 
than  even  the  stomach  worm  or  the  scab  parasite. 

Neumann  (1888a)  and  many  others,  previously  and  since,  state 
that  in  general  giddy  animals  should  be  butchered  in  the  first  stage 
of  gid,  as  the  meat  is  still  good.  In  the  case  of  valuable  animals,  an 
operation  should  be  undertaken  if  indicated  by  favorable  symptoms. 
He  also  urges  that  sheep  affected  with  spinal  gid  should  always  be 
killed.  His  advice  is  perhaps  as  good  as  could  be  given.  In  general, 
the  greater  value  of  cattle,  as  Piitz  ( 1882<*)  has  noted,  would  justify 
an  operation  oftener  than  sheep  values  would.  This  is  especially 
true  since  the  wool  value  of  the  living  sheep  is  considerably  less 
than  the  dairy  value  of  the  living  cow.  The  figures  already  quoted 
from  Diem  (1906or)  show  the  value  of  successful  operations.  Opera- 
tion is,  of  course,  especially  indicated  in  the  case  of  breeding  animals. 
We  know  of  no  adequate  medicinal  treatment  for  gid,  and  experi- 
ments along  this  line  have  so  far  been  unsuccessful.  (See  Hall,  1909 or 
and  Moussu,  1910or.) 

It  seems  that  animals  affected  with  gid  seldom  get  to  the  larger 
slaughterhouses,  although  F.  Braun  (1906a)  says  he  has  often  found 
it  in  meat  inspection  of  cattle.  Edelmann  (1896a)  says  Ccenurus 
cerebralis  is  ordinarily  unimportant  in  meat  inspection,  but  that  in 
Hesse  and  Sachsen-Meiningen  the  meat  of  giddy  animals  is  to  be 
held  as  depreciated  in  value  or  worthless,  according  to  the  degree  of 
the  disease  and  the  condition  of  the  carcass.  Carreau  and  Rousseau 
(1909a)  give  directions  for  detecting  giddy  sheep  in  abattoir  inspec- 
tion in  France.  Lloyd  (1909«'),  in  an  article  on  meat  inspection  in 
England,  lists  C&nurus  cerebralis  as  one  of  the  most  common  larval 
cestode  parasites  involved  in  meat  inspection,  and  Clarke  (1907a), 
as  already  noted,  says  he  has  met  many  cases  of  gid  in  sheep  at  the 
slaughterhouses  in  England.  Moreau  (1909«'),  in  an  article  on  meat 
inspection,  gives  the  methods  for  detection  of  the  gid  parasite  and  lists 
animals  so  infected  for  partial  condemnation. 

Bourrier,  Charpentier,  and  Lafourcade  ( 1884a)  only  found  the  gid 
parasite  once  after  five  and  a  half  years  at  the  Villette  abattoir,  in 
spite  of  a  careful  examination  of  the  brains  of  the  18,000  to  20,000 
cattle  that  were  slaughtered  there  monthly.  Schone  (1886a)  only 
found  it  once  among  8,962  sheep  at  Chemnitz. 

From  a  legal  standpoint,  gid  constitutes  an  impairment  of  contract 
in  cattle  sales  in  some  places  in  Europe,  according  to  Semmer  ( 1885c), 
who  gives  this  period  as  14  days  in  Nassau  and  Thurgau,  15  days  in 
Canton  St.  Gallen,  and  31  days  in  Canton  Schaffhausen.  These 
periods  are  too  short,  as  Semmer  notes.  Gerlach  (1872a),  who  gives 
the  same  figures,  says  the  period  should  be  three  months,  but  states 


46  THE  GID   PARASITE  AND  ALLIED   SPECIES. 

that  such  a  fixed  period  can  be  dispensed  with  on  the  ground  that 
only  an  occasional  breeding  ram  comes  up  for  consideration,  and 
especially  because  we  are  in  a  position  from  a  scientific  standpoint 
to  render  a  correct  judgment  on  any  concrete  case.  Heusinger 
(1853a)  states  that  in  the  "Ancient  Laws  and  Institutes  of  Wales" 
the  law  governing  impairment  of  contract  allows  three  days  for  the 
development  of  "dera,"  or  vertigo,  in  sheep,  cattle,  and  horses. 
I  am  unable  to  state  whether  this  covers  cases  of  gid  or  not. 

ALLEGED    CAUSES    OF   GID. 

Before  the  gid  parasite  was  known  as  the  cause  of  gid  various 
theories  were  advanced  to  account  for  the  disease,  and  after  the 
parasite  was  known  to  be  the  cause  many  theories  were  advanced 
to  account  for  its  presence.  Nor  did  the  proposal  of  new  theories 
cease  after  Kuchenmeister  (1853e)  had  demonstrated  the  parasite's 
life  history.  Below  are  cited  the  various  theories  found  by  the  writer, 
only  one  authority  being  assigned  for  any  given  theory. 

Stier  (1776a)  discredits  the  theories  that  gid  is  due  to  insect 
larvae  in  nose,  to  inflammation,  to  stagnation  of  blood,  or  to  hot  days 
followed  by  cold  nights. 

Gericke  (1805^)  considers  gid  as  due  to  an  accumulation  of  fluid 
in  the  head  from  hypersecretion  of  glands  injured  by  blows  on  the 
animal's  head. 

Youatt  (18340-)  opposes  the  theories  ascribing  the  disease  to  poi- 
sonous plants,  delay  in  docking,  to  hoarfrost,  apoplexy,  or  to  weak- 
ness of  meninges;  also  Hogg's  theory  of  gid  as  due  to  the  injection  of 
fluid  from  the  central  canal  of  the  spinal  cord  into  brain. 

Maillet  (1836a)  notes  the  idea  that  gid  in  cattle  was  due  to  heavy 
yokes. 

Tschudi  (1837a)  has  a  footnote,  signed  Leuckart,  which  notes  that 
gid  occurs  in  unhorned  sheep  and  that  certain  formative  material 
should  go  into  the  horns  the  first  year,  or,  failing  that,  the  high 
blood  pressure  favors  cyst  production. 

Schellhase  (ISSOrr)  objects  to  the  theory  of  cachexia  and  malnu- 
trition as  causes  of  gid  and  proposes  the  opposing  theory  that  the 
heightening  of  the  vegetative  life  of  sheep  by  suppression  of  activity 
in  the  period  of  youth  causes  a  superfluity  of  material  which  gives 
rise  to  worms. 

Eschricht  ( 1840b)  favors  the  idea  that  bad  feeding  and  wet  meadows 
give  rise  to  gid. 

Blacklock  (1841  a)  adopts  a  theory,  credited  by  him  to  Hogg  in 
1812,  that  gid  is  due  to  the  back  of  the  sheep  being  chilled. 

Pluskal  (1844«)  quotes  the  following  theories  of  spinal  gid:  That 
it  is  due  to  chilling,  metastasis,  rheumatic-toxic  trouble,  too  much 
jumping,  excessive  stretching  of  hip  ligaments,  and  feebleness  of  the 
ram. 


ALLEGED   CAUSES  OF  GID.  47 

Numan  (1850b)  notes  that  gid  has  been  referred  to  bad  food  and 
water,  Colchicum  autumnale,  Allium  vineale,  Ranunculus  flammula, 
an  adder,  damp  stalls,  cutting  teeth,  and  temperature  variation. 

Reynal  (1858a)  thinks  that  gid  is  due  to  heredity  or  the  breeding 
of  too  young  animals. 

Gamgee  (1859a)  cites  Navieres's  theory  that  a  fly  perforated  the 
sheep's  skull  and  deposited  eggs. 

Davaine  (1860a)  mentions  the  theory  of  gid  as  due  to  precocious 
obesity. 

Dun  (1864or)  puts  forth  a  common  mixture  of  truth  and  error, 
rather  than  a  theory,  when  he  says  that  sheep  pick  up  the  eggs  or  larvae 
of  tapeworms  dropped  by  dogs,  rabbits,  or  sheep,  and  that  the  ova 
of  flukes  also  cause  gid. 

Fiirstenburg  ( 1865b)  condemns  Mahnke's  theory  that  gid  parasite 
eggs  get  into  the  blood  and  are  destroyed,  the  dissolved  product 
subsequently  uniting  with  the  egg  or  semen  of  the  host,  thus  forming 
a  fetus  which  later  becomes  the  parasite. 

Vollrath  ( 1905a)  states  that  in  advising  farmers  to  have  their  cattle 
operated  on  for  gid  he  met  with  marvelous  causes  for  the  disease,  and 
this,  too,  in  Germany  where  the  knowledge  of  the  etiology  and 
prophylaxis  of  the  disease  has  coexisted  with  the  disease  for  half  a 
century.  It  is  not,  therefore,  surprising  that,  according  to  Doctor 
Treacy,  of  this  Bureau,  in  a  letter  of  June  5,  1907,  the  sheepmen  of 
Montana  have  been  classing  the  gid  trouble  as  loco,  poison  weed, 
water  on  the  brain,  grub  in  the  head,  etc.,  "and  have  not  paid  any 
attention  to  the  destruction  of  the  animals  that  have  died." 

NAMES    APPLIED    TO    GID   AND    GIDDY   ANIMALS. 

The  wide  distribution  of  gid  and  the  peculiarity  of  its  symptoms 
have  led  to  its  receiving  a  great  number  of  popular  names  in  various 
languages.  In  the  following  lists  these  names,  together  with  the 
medical  names,  have  been  arranged  in  chronological  order  under  each 
country.  Where  the  name  is  applied  to  a  giddy  sheep  instead  of  to 
the  disease  it  is  indicated  by  an  asterisk  (*),  and  where  the  term 
applied  is  an  adjective  it  is  indicated  by  a  dagger  (f).  Spinal  gid  is 
indicated  thus  (§).  This  list  is  necessarily  incomplete,  especially 
as  regards  .terms  used  in  Asia,  from  which  continent  no  records  of 
gid  are  available,  although  the  disease  probably  occurs  there. 

The  authority  cited  for  a  name  will  often,  but  not  always,  be  the 
one  found  using  it  first.  In  every  case  the  question  of  the  propriety 
of  using  the  word  to  denote  gid,  or  infection  with  Multiceps  multiceps, 
must  be  referred  to  the  authority  cited. 

GERMANY.— Rolfinck  1656a,  Vertigo;  Scultetus  1672a,  Wirbling;  Guetebruckl766^; 
Drehnigkeit,  Dummlichkeit,  Taubsucht,  Verruckung  der  Sinnen;  Batsch  1786a,*  Dreher, 


48  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

*Seegler;  Gmelin  1790a,  Drehen,  Springen;  Stier  1776a,  }drehende;  Blooh  1782a, 
Drehkrankheit,  *Springer,  *Segler;  Frenzel  1794a,  ^albern,  Damischseyn,  Drehlinge, 
Drehsucht,  Dummheit,  ^elbisch,  Irregehen,  Kreislauf,  Ldppischseyn,  Ringlichtwerden, 
Schwindel,  Seglen,  Taumeln,  Traben,  Verruckung,  Wurflichtseyn;  Rohlwes  181 3a, 
*Dahmeler,  *Ringldufer,  *Traber;  Numan  1850b,  Dummsein,  Eibischwerden,  Kopf- 
krankheit,Ringldufen,  Ringlicht;  Hering  1853<r,  Dippelkrankheit,  Dipplichkeit;  Reynal 
1854b,  *Wurfler;  Spinola  1858b,  *Irrlinger,  *Propheten,  *Schwindler,  *Seitlinge;  Blu- 
menbach  1802a,  Queesenkopfe;  Pluskal  1844<r,  Drehe,  §gebrochenes  Kreuz,  \Onub- 
berkrankheit,  Hydrocephalus  hydatideus,  ^Hy  drops  hydatibus  medullas,  spinalis,  Hydrops 
hydatideus  ovium,  §Kreuzdrehe,  \Kreuzlahme,  §  Tabes  dorsalis,  Traberkrankheit;  Kiich- 
enmeister  1855f,  Dreh-Krankheit;  Gurlt  1831a,  §Atrophia  medullse  spinalis;  Erdt  1870a, 
*Reitbahndreher,  *Zeigerdreher;  Gerlach  1872a,  Kollern;  Piitz  1882(T,  *§Kreuzdreher, 
*§Kreuzschlager,  *Taumler;M6lleT  1891a,  Drehwurmkrankheit;  Friedberger  u.  Frohner, 
1904<r,  Blasenschwindel,  Drehbewegung,  Kopfdrehe,  Kreisbewegung,  Manegebewegung, 
Narrischsein,  Quesenkopf,  Reitbahnbewegung,  Rollbewegung,  *Schwinder,  Taumelsucht, 
Tolpischsein,  Wdlzbewegung,  Zeigerbewegung;  Braun,  F.  1906(r,  •fddmisch;  Diem  1906o-, 
•\wiirfig;  Worbs  1909<r,  ^wurflig;  Pfab  1910O-,  Coenurus-Krankheit, 

FRANCE. — Bloch  1788a,  sauteuse,  tourneuse;  Moorcroft  1792a,  tournoiement,  vertige; 
Bosc  1816a,  tournis;  Carrere  1826O',  lourd;  Numan  1850b,  *toumeurs;  Reynal  1857a, 
avortin,  *cinglew,  lourderie,  *trotteur,  *vmlier;  Cruzel  1869a,  avertin;  Benion  1874a, 
*portant  au  vent,  ^paraplegic  hydatique;  Neumann  1892a,  etourdissement,  hydrocephale, 
§tournis  lombaire,  vertigo;  Armatage  1895,  etourdi,  eturdi. 

ENGLAND. — Moorcroft  1792a,  gid,  turn;  Home  1795a,  staggers;  Turton  1806<r,  dunt, 
rickets;  Schulling  1821«-,  sturdy;  Youatt  1834o',  gig,  goggles^turnsick;  Veterinarian 
1855<r,  vertigo;  Spooner  1888a,  blob-whirl,  giddiness,  sturdy-gig;  Neumann  1892a, 
§hydatic  paraplegia,  hydatido-cephalus,  hydatid  on  the  brain,  ^lumbar  gid,  ^medullary  gid, 
punt,  turnside;  Armatage  1893O-,  hydrocephalus  hydatidseus;  Armatage  1895,  ccenurus 
cerebralis,  hydatids;  Penberthy  1897c,  cosnurosis;  Cave  1903fr,  pothery. 

LAPLAND. — Hoffberg  1759a,  Ringsjuka. 

IRELAND.— Bellingham  1844a,  staggers. 

SCOTLAND. — M'Call  1857a,  sturdy. 

HOLLAND. — Numan  1850b,  *Draaijers,  Draaizickte,  *Dravers,  §Kruislamheid,  §Schuur- 
ziekte,  *Zeilers;  Blumenbach  1802a,  Draaikoppen. 

ITALY. — Fontana  1784a,  folie,  *fols,  male  vertiginoso,  storno;  Neumann  1892a,  ver- 
tigine  idatiginosa,  vertigine  per  cenuro. 

DENMARK. — Krabbe  1864h,  Dreiesyge. 

CAPE  COLONY.— Hellier  1894a,  Mal-Kop;  Buckley  1904»,  Malkopziete,  Maikop  Ziekte; 
Hutcheon  1904«-,  gid,  sturdy,  turnsick;  Gilchrist  1909or,  \lumbar-gid.  % 

ARGENTINE  REPUBLIC. — Armatage  1895,  ^moonstruck;  Monfallet  1899o-,  locura 
de  las  ovejas. 

SOUTH  AUSTRALIA. — Dixon  1883o-,  crankiness,  tumsick. 

CHILE. — Monfallet  1899o-,  cenurosis,  §paraplejia  hidatica,  torneo,  torneo  encefalico, 
§torneo  lumbar. 

SPAIN. — Monfallet  1899'cr,  modorra;  Espejo  y  del  Rosal  1905O-,  torneo. 

SWITZERLAND. — Retzius  1790a,  ^sturmig. 

UNITED  STATES. — Livingston  1809<r,  dizziness,  staggers;  Clok  1847n-,  water  in  the  head; 
Verrill  1870d,  gid,  sturdy,  vertigo,  water-brain;  Tellor  1879a,  hydatid  in  the  brain,  hydatid 
of  the  brain,  turnsick;  Crutchfield  I880a,  hydatid  on  the  brain;  Killebrew  1880o-,  hyda- 
tids; Stewart  1880a,  giddiness,  turnside;  Powers  1887a,  blind  staggers;  Burch  1895<r, 
turnsids;  Sommer  1896c,  turnstick;  Campbell  &  Lacroix  1907O-,  turn  sickness;  letter 
of  Dr.  Cary  to  Dr.  Treacy,  May  21,  1907,  ^locoed. 

The  writer  finds  that  in  Montana  gid  is  known  as  loco,  lamb  loco,  bug  in  the  head, 
and  blind  staggers,  and  that  giddy  sheep  are  commonly  said  to  be  crazy. 


COMMON    NAMES  OF    GID.  49 

To  the  above  list  might  be  added  \epct  voaof,  the  Greek  for 
"the  sacred  disease,"  epilepsy,  by  which  Hippocrates  (1825«r)  desig- 
nates various  forms  of  vertigo  in  man  and  animals,  and  under  which 
term  it  is  likely  that  gid  in  sheep  was  known.  There  should  also  be 
added  the  Latin  term,  "tornatio,"  used  by  Acharius  (1782)  but  not 
assigned  to  any  country. 

Unless  an  author  specifies  otherwise,  it  is  assumed  that  a  term  used 
by  him  for  gid  was  in  use  in  the  country  from  which  or  of  which  he 
wrote.  This  accounts  for  the  terms  listed  from  the  United  States 
at  a  time  when  it  is  doubtful  whether  there  was  any  gid  in  this  country. 

As  the  present  writer  has  not  been  in  a  position  to  check  all  errors 
of  spelling  as  such  and  can  not  guarantee  that  they  were  not  local 
variations,  all  names  are  included  as  found,  even  where  it  seems  fairly 
clear  that  there  is  an  error,  as  in  the  case  of  "turnstick"  of  Sommer 
(1896c). 

The  term  "locoed"  is  included  on  the  strength  of  Doctor  Gary's 
statement  that  in  his  opinion  it  includes  in  Montana  sheep  that  are 
actually  suffering  from  gid,  and  on  the  evidence  of  Dr.  E.  T.  Davison, 
who  reports  under  date  of  December  21,  1907,  that  he  has  examined 
several  sheep  reported  as  "locoed"  and  found  them  all  infested  with 
the  gid  parasite.  The  writer  has  found  that  giddy  sheep  are  very 
commonly  referred  to  in  Montana  as  locoed,  and  in  one  place,  where 
no  loco  weed  or  loco  disease  existed,  gid  was  known  as  lamb  loco. 

Such  a  term  as  "ringsjuka"  is  included  on  the  possibility,  discussed 
elsewhere,  of  the  disease  in  question  being  gid. 

The  term  "moonstruck,"  referred  to  the  Argentine  Republic  by 
Armatage  (1895),  is  presumably  a  translation. 

COMMON    NAMES    OF    THE    GID   PARASITE. 

The  following  list  is  not  complete,  but  covers  the  commoner  names 
used  in  the  more  important  countries,  one  authority  for  the  name 
being  cited: 

GERMANY. — Blumenbach  1802a,  Die  Queese;  Gurlt  1831a,  Gemeinschwanz,  Vielkopf; 
Kiichenmeister  1855f,  Schaafquese;  May  1855a,  Gehirn-  Vielkopf;  Leuckart  1863a, 
Drehwurm;  Erdt  1870a,  Ccenurusblase;  Ziirn  1882<r,  Gehirnblasenbandwurm,  Gehirnbla- 
senwurm,  Gehirnquese,  Quesenbandwurm. 

FRANCE. — D'Arboval  1827a,  ccenure  cerebrale;  Von  Siebold  1852a,  Ver  du  tournis; 
Neumann  1888a,  cenure  cerebrale. 

ENGLAND. — Moorcroft  1792a,  social  hydatid;  Cobbold  1874c,  gid  hydatid,  many  headed 
hydatid;  Cobbold  1874v,  gid-hydatid  tapeworm. 

HOLLAND. — Blumenbach  1802a,  Herszen-Blaas-Worm;  Numan  1850b,  Vielkop- 
Blaasworm  der  Hersenen. 

CAPE  COLONY. — Gilchrist  1909<r,  water-bags. 

UNITED  STATES. — Verrill  1870d,  water  brain;  Stiles  1898a,  gid  bladder  worm. 

A  Scotch  sheepman  in  Montana  refers  to  the  gid  parasite  as  the  "sturdy  bag"  and 
states  that  it  is  commonly  known  by  this  name  in  Scotland. 


50  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

SYNONYMY. 

The  following  table  of  synonymy  is  based  on  over  600  references 
and  is  probably  very  nearly  complete.  The  essential  discussion 
of  the  correct  names  of  the  parasite  has  already  been  given  under 
the  historical  sketch : 

Genus  MULTICEPS  Goeze  17823. 

1782.  Multiceps  Goeze  1782a. 

1782.  Cerebrina  Acharius  1782;  erroneously  substituted  for  Multiceps. 

1782.  Txnia  vesicularis  Goeze  1782a,  pro  parte. 

1786.  Ilydatigena  Goeze  1782  of  Batsch  1786a,  pro  parte. 

1788.  Vesicaria  Schrank  1788a. 

1790.  Hydatula  Abildgaard  1790,  pro  parte. 

1798.  Hydatis  Virey  1798a,  pro  parte. 

1800.  Polycephalus  Zeder  1800a;  Multiceps  renamed. 

1808.  Caenurus  Rudolph!  1808a;  Multiceps  and  Polycephalus  renamed. 

1815.  Polycephops  Rafinesque  1815a;  Polycephalus  renamed. 

J818.  Hydatidula  Cloquet  1818a;  misspelling  for  Hydatula. 

1824.  Caenurus  Bremser  1824a,  for  Ccenurus. 

1830.  Coenureus  Bory  de  St.  Vincent  1830a;  misprint  for  Ccenurus. 

1830.  Vesicularia  Schrank  of  Bory  de  St.  Vincent  1830a;  Bory  de  St.  Vincent  1830a 

is  author  of  Vesicularia;  misspelling  for  Vesicaria. 

1831.  Ccenurs  Gurlt  1831a;  misprint  for  Ccenurus. 
1844.  Canurus  Goodsir  1844g;  misprint  for  Ccenurus. 

1850.   Txnia  Goeze  of  Diesing  1850a;  in  synonymy  of  Ccenurus;  Linnaeus  1758a  is 

author  of  Tsenia. 
1850.  Hydatula  Batsch  of  Diesing  1850a;  in  synonymy;  Abildgaard  1790  is  author  of 

Hydatula. 

[1870.]  Coinurias  McClure  [1870rr];  misprint  for  Ccenurus. 
1895.  Cenurus  Armatage  1895;  misprint  for  Ccenurus. 
1900.  Cystotaenia  R.  Leuck.  of  Braun  1900a;  error. 

1902.   Vermis  Bloch  1782a  of  Sherborn  1902a.    See  discussion  of  synonymy. 
1905.  Ccencerus  Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Sheep  Breeder  19055;  misprint  for  Ccenurus. 
1905.  Csenurus  Cuvier  1825a  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson  1905a;  Bremser  1824a  is  author 

of  Caenurus.    [Schinz,  and  not  Cuvier  (1825a),  should  be  held  responsible 

for  the  use  of  this  form.    See  discussion  of  synonymy.] 

Species  MULTICEPS  MULTICEPS  (Leske  17801)  Hall  igio£. 

1780.  Txnia  multiceps  Leske  1780a. 
1780.    Vermis  vesicularis  socialis  Bloch  1780a. 
1782.   Txnia  vesicularis  cerebrina  Goeze  1782a. 
1782.   T.  vesicularis,  multiceps  Acharius  1782. 

1786.  Ilydatigena  cerebralis  Batsch  1786a. 

1787.  Tcenia  globuleux  of  Chabert  1787a,  pro  parte;  misdetermination. 

1787.  Tenia  globuleux  of  Chabert  1787a,  pro  parte;  misdetermination. 

1788.  Vesicaria  socialis  (Bloch  1780a)  Schrank  1788a. 
1790.   Tsenia  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Gmelin  1790a. 

1790.  Txnia.  socialis  (Bloch  1780a)  Retzius  1790a;  probably  1786a. 

1790.  Txnia  cerebrina  (Goeze  1782a)  Retzius  1790a;  probably  1786a. 

1790.  Txniae  cerebrinae  Retzius  1790a;  probably  1786?. 

1795.  Txnia  hydatigenia  Home  1795a. 

1795.  Txnia  hydatigena  of  Home  1795a;  error. 

1798.  Hydatis  cerebralis  (Batsch  1768a)  Virey  1798a. 


SYNONYMY  OF   MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  51 

1800.   Tsenia  visceralis  multiceps  Goeze  (1782a)  of  Zeder  1800a;  this  combination  should 

be  attributed  to  Zeder  1800a. 
1800.   Tsenia  multiceps  Goeze  (1782a)  of  Zeder  1800a;   this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Leske  1780a. 

1800.   Tsenia  hydatigcna  Pallas  (1766b)  of  Zeder  1800a;  error. 
1800.   Tsenia  cerebralis  Syst.  Nat.  Linn.  (1790)  of  Zeder  1800a;=Gmelin  1790a. 
1803.  Hydatula  sodalis  (Bloch  1780a)  Schrank  1803a. 
1803.  Polycephalus  ovinus  Zeder  1803a. 

1803.  Polycephalus  bovinus  Zeder  1803a. 

1804.  Tccnia  vesicularis  cerebrina  multiceps  Goeze  (1782a)  of  Laennec  1804a;  this  com- 

bination should  be  attributed  to  Laennec  1804a. 

1804.  Toenia  cerebralis  Bruguiere  of  Laennec  1804a;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Lsennec  1804a apparently;  Bruguiere  (1792a)  uses  Tsenia  but  does  not 
involve  this  species;  Bruguiere  (1791a)  in  the  accessible  copy  has  this  part 
in  script  and  hence  unreliable;  form  given  is  Tenia  cerebral,  unscientific. 

1804.  Hydatis  cerebralis  Bosc  [1802a]  of  Laennec  1804a;  this  combination  should  be 
attributed  to  Virey  1798a. 

1804.  Polycephalus  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Laennec  1804a. 

1808.  Coenurus  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Rudolphi  1808a. 

1810.  Hydatula  cerebralis  Batsch  (1786a)  of  Rudolphi  1810a;  this  combination  shoiild 
be  attributed  to  Rudolphi  1810a. 

1810.  Tsenia  vesicularis  Goeze  (1782a)  of  Rudolphi  1810a;  in  synonymy;  is  a  generic, 
not  a  specific  synonym. 

1818.  Hydatidula  cerebralis  Batsch  (1786a)  of  Cloquet  1818a;  this  combination  should 
be  attributed  to  Cloquet  1818a. 

1818.  Tsenia  vesicularis  cerebrina  multiceps  Goeze  [1782a]  of  Cloquet  1818a;  this  combi- 
nation should  be  attributed  to  Cloquet  1818a. 

1825.  C[senurus]  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Bremser  1824a. 

[1828.]  Cysticercus  tenuicollis  of  Buzaringues  [1828o-]  in  Reynal  1857a;  misdetermi- 
nation. 

1831.  Ccenurs  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Gurlt  1831a. 

1833.  Coenurus  cerebralis  Lamarck  and  Rudolphi  of  Rose  1833a;   this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Rudolphi  1808a. 

1834.  Cysticercus  tenuicollis  of  Youatt  1834<r. 
1834.  Hydra  hydratula  Linnaeus  of  Youatt  1834  a. 
1837.  Polycephalus  cocnurus  Tschudi  1837a. 

1837.  Polycephalus  cerebralis  Cloquet  (1818a)  of  Tschudi  1837a;    this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Laennec  1804a. 
1844.  Polycephalus   cerebralis  V.  of    Pluskal  1844n-;    this   combination    should    be 

attributed  to  Laennec  1804a.     [V.= Virey?]. 
1844.   Tsenia  vesicularis  cerebralis  G.  of  Pluskal  1844<T;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Pluskal  1844rr.     [G.=Goeze?]. 
1844.  Hydatis  cerebralis  Bl.  of  Pluskal  1844<r;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Virey  1798a.     [Bl.=Blumenbach?] 
1844.  Hydatis  polystomos  medullaris  Pluskal  1844n-. 
1844.  "  Tsenia  cerebralis  (Pennant,  Turton)"  of  Bellingham  1844a;  this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Gmelin  1790a. 
1848.     Tcenia  vesicularis  Goeze  1782  of  E.  Blanchard  1848e;  this  combination  should 

be  attributed  to  Laennec  1804a,  apparently. 
1848.  Hydratula  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  E.  Blanchard  1848e. 
1850.  Hidatula  cerebralis  Batsch  (1786a)  of  Diesing  1850a;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Diesing  1850a. 

1850.  Ccenurus  serialis  Gervais  (1847a)  of  Diesing  1850a  et  al;  misdetermination. 
1850.  Hydatis  cerebralis  Blumenbach  (1802a)  of  Numan  1850b;  this  combination  should 

be  attributed  to  Virey  1798a. 


52  THE   GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED   SPECIES. 

1850.   Txnia  hydatigena  Fisscher  (1788n-)  of  Numan  1850b;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Pallas  1766b. 
1850.   Tsenia  vesicularis  socialis  Goeze  (1782a)  of  Numan  1850b;   this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Numan  1850b. 
1850.  Polycephalus  cerebralis,  ovinus  Zeder  (1803a)  of  Numan  1850b;  this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Numan  1850b. 
1850.  Hydatis  polystomos  medullaris'M.uska.l  (1844)  of  Numan  1850b:  this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Pluskal  1844  ft. 
1850.  Polycephalus  ovium  Numan  1850b. 

1850.  Ilydatis facialis  of  Dupuy  [Date?]  in  Numan  1850b;  Dupuy  not  available. 
1850.  Ccenurus  cerebreux  of  Dupuy  [Date?]  in  Numan  1850b;  Dupuy  not  available. 
1850.   TscniaglobuleuxChsibeTt  of  Dupuy  [Date?]  in  Numan  1850b;  Dupuy  not  available. 
1850.  Hydatis  cerebralis  Lemark  of  Dupuy  [Date?]  in  Numan  1850b;  this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Virey  1798a. 

1850.  Polycephalus  (Coenurus}  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Numan  1850b. 
1850.   Tsenia  cerebralis,  vesicularis  von  Siebold  1850a. 
1852.   Tsenia  cerebralis  Linne1  of  Reynal  1852Q-;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Gmelin  1790a. 
1852.  Polycephalus  ovium  Zeder  (1803a)  of  Reynal  1852o-;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Numan  1850b. 

1852.  Tsenia  multiplex  Leuckart  1852b;  a  corruption  of  Tsenia  multiceps. 

1853.  Tsenia  cerebralis  Linnaeus  of  Baird  1853a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Gmelin  1790a. 
1853.  Hydatis  cerebralis  Bosc  of  Baird  1853a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed  to 

Virey  1798a. 
1853.  Csenurus  cerebralis  Rud.  of  Baird  1853a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Bremser  1824a. 
1853.   Tsenia  coenurus  (Tschudi  1837a)  Kuchenmeister  1853e;  first  naming  of  strobila 

form. 

1853.  Tsenise  coenuri  Kuchenmeister  1853e;  plural  of  Tsenia  coenurus. 

1854.  Tseniis  ccenurus  (Tschudi  1837a)  Kuchenmeister  1854a;  plural  of  Tsenia  ccenurus. 
1854.   Tsenise  coenurus  (Tschudi  1837a)  Kuchenmeister  1854<r;  plural  of  Txnia  canurus. 
1854.  Tenia  ccenurus  (Tschudi  1837a)   Kuchenmeister  1854h;  misprint  for    Tsenia 

ccenurus. 

1854.   Tsenia  solium  of  von  Siebold  1854b;  misdetermination. 
1854.   Tsenia  serrata  of  von  Siebold  1854b;  misdetermination. 

1854.  T(senia)  ccenures  van  Beneden  1854O-. 

1855.  Ccenurus  serdalis  Gervais  (1847a)  of  Goldberg  1855a;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Goldberg  1855a;  misdetermination  and  misprint. 

1855.  Hidatula  cerebralis  Batsch  (1786a)  of  Goldberg  1855a;  this  combination  should 
be  attributed  to  Diesing  1850a. 

1855.  Cysticercus  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Goldberg  1855a;  used  only  in  genitive  in 

Latin  article. 

1856.  Tsenia  ccenurus  v.  Sieb.  of  Leuckart  1856a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Kuchenmeister  1853e. 

1856.  T(senia)  vesicularis  cerebralis  s.  multiceps  Goeze  (1782a)  of  Leuckart  1856a;  this 

combination  should  be  attributed  to  Leuckart  1856a;  see  Pluskal  1844. 

1857.  Tcenia  cerebralis  Linn,  of  Reynal  1857a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Lsennec  1804a. 

1857.  Polycephalus  ovinus  Zider  of  Reynal  1857a;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 

uted to  Zeder 1803a. 

1858.  Tnia  coenurus  (Tschudi  1837a)  Baillet  1858c;  misspelling. 

1859.  Tfenia  marginata  Gotze  of  Fuchs  1859a;  error. 

1859.  Tsena  serrata  R.  of  Hering  1859a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed  to 
Hering  1859a;  misdetermination,  misprint. 


SYNONYMY   OF   MULTICEPS   MULTICEPS.  53 

1859.  Tsenia  e  ccenuro  Aut.  of  Bering  1859a*. 

1859.  Tosnia  camurus  (Tschudi  1837a)  Keller  1859a;  misspelling. 

1860.  " Echinococci"  of  Crisp  1860a;  error. 

1861.  T(senia)  ccenura  Koeberl6  1861a;  misprint. 
1861.  T(senia)  ccenara  Koeberl^  1861a;  misprint. 

1861.  C(ysticercus)  ccenurus  (Tschudi  1837a)  Kceberle"  1861a. 

1861.   Tenia  canurus  van  Beneden  1861a. 

1863.  Polycephalus  cerebralis  Numan  of  Diesing  1863b;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Lsennec  1804a. 
1863.  Cosnurus  cerebralis  ?  leporis  cuniculi  Baillet  of  Diesing  1863b;  in  synonymy  of 

Tsenia  ccenurus;  not  at  present  available,  cited  from  Diesing  1864a,  identical; 

this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  Diesing  1863b. 
1863.   Tsenia  (Cystotsenia)  ccenurus  Leuckart  1863  of  Diesing  1863b;  this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Diesing  1863b. 
1863.   Tsenia  serrata  Siebold  of  Diesing  1863b;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Goeze  1782a;  error. 
1863.   Tsenia  coenuri  cuniculi  Baillet  of  Diesing  1863b;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Diesing  1863b;  error. 
1863.   Tenia-serrata  of  Letort  1863a. 
1863.   Tsenia  multiplex  Gotze  of  Leuckart  1863a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Leuckart  1852b. 

1863.  Hydatis  polycephalus  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Randall  1863a. 
1866.  Ccenurus  cerebralis  Kiich.  of  Baillet  1866a;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Rudolphi  1808a. 
1868.  Cysticercus  cxnurus  Desmonceaux  1868a. 

[1870.]  Ccenurias  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  McClure  [1870o-];  misspelling'. 
[1870.]  Tcenia  solium  of  McClure  [1870o-];  error. 

[1870.]  " Echinococcus,  polymorphus  or  vetrinorium"  of  McClure  [1870rr];  error. 
1874.   Tsenia  ovilla  of  Bunion  1874a. 

1877.  Tsenia  coenurus  v.  Sieb.  of  Pagenstecher  1877a;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Kiichenmeister  1853e. 

1878.  Ccenurus  cerebalis  von  Linstow  1878a;  misprint. 

1879.  Tsenia  cenurus  Teller  1879a;  misprint. 

1879.   Tsenia  csenurus  (Desmonceaux  1868a)  Bertolus  et  Chauveau  1879a. 

1879.  Toenia  csenurus  (Desmonceaux  1868a)  Bertolus  et  Chauveau  1879a. 

1880.  Tsenia  multiplex  Goze  of  Leuckart  1880b;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 

to  Leuckart  1852b. 

1880.   T(senia)  visceralis;  cerebrina  Kiichenmeister  1880a. 

1880.   Verm,  vesical.  sodalis  (Bloch  1780a)  Kuchenmeister  1880a. 

1880.  Polycephalus  granulosus  Zeder  of  Kuchenmeister  1880a. 

1880.  Ccenurus  cerebralis  auct.  of  Moniez  1880a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 
to  Rudolphi  1808a. 

1882.  Tsenia  csenurus  Sieb.  of  de  Lanessan  1882a;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Bertolus  et  Chauveau  1879a. 

1882.  Csenurus  serialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Perroncito  1882a;  misspelling;  misdetermina- 
tion. 

1882.  Csenurus  sserialis  Gerv.  of  Perroncito  1882a;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Perroncito  1882a;  misspelling;  misdetermination. 

1882.   Tasnia  ccenurus  canis  Ziirn  1882«-. 

1882.  Ccenurus  cerebralis  ovis  Ziirn  1882O-. 

1882.  Ccenurus  serialis  Baillet  of  Ziirn  1882<r;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 
to  Gervais  1847a;  misdetermination. 

1882.  Cysticercus  e  Tsenia  ccenur.     Zflrn  1882n-. 

1885.  Tsenia  ccenur.  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Reinitz  1885a. 

1886.  T[aenia]  ccenure  Brocchi  1886a. 


54  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

1887.  Tenia  cocunuruz  Besnard  1887a;  misspelling.  [Mesnard  1887a  is  a  review  of 
Besnard  1886a,  not  available  to  me.] 

1893.  T(aenia)  ccenusus  Burch  1893n-;  misprint. 

1894.  Polycephalus  ovis  Braun  1894a. 

1895.  Cenurus  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Armatage  1895. 

1898.    Vermis  vesicularis  socialis  Bloch  1782  of  Stiles  1898a;  this  combinat  ion  should  be 

attributed  to  Bloch  1780a. 

1898.  C(enuro)  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Bosso  1898<r. 
1901 .  C[ystolaenia]  coenurus  (Tschudi  1837a)  Benham  1901a. 
1901.   Tenia  casnurus  (Desmonceaux  1868a)  Perroncito  1901a. 

1901.  Taenia  ccenurus  Van  Ben.  of  Vaullegeard  1901a;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  (Tschudi  1837a)  Kuchenmeister  1853e. 

1902.  Ccenurus  cerebralis  bovis  Mayr  1902a. 

1903.  T(aenia)  casrunus  Buysson  1903^;  misprint. 

1903.  Ccenurus  cerebrales  Law  1903a;  misprint. 

1904.  "T.  [(Cystotsenia)]  ccenurus  Kuchenmeister  of  Leuckart  1853"  of  Stevenson 

1904b;  see  Diesing  1863b. 

1905.  Taenia  multiceps  (Zeder  1800)  Rudolphi  1802  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson  1905a; 

this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  Leske  1780a. 

1905.  Hydatis  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Blumenbach  1816a  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson 
1905a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  Virey  1798a. 

1905.  Ccenurus  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Cuvier  1825a  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson  1905a; 
this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  Rudolphi  1808a;  form  intended, 
apparently,  Casnurus  cerebralis. 

1905.  "  T.  [(Cystotsenia)}  ccenurus  Kuchenmeister  of  Leuckart  1863"  of  Stiles  and 
Stevenson  1905a;  see  Diesing  1863b. 

1905.  Polycephalus  cerebralis  (Batsch  1786a)  Lsennec  1812  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson 
1905a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  Laennec  1804a. 

1905.  "Hidatula  cerebralis  (Batsch)  of  Goldberg  1855a"  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson  1905a; 
see  Diesing  1850a. 

1905.  Multiceps  socialis  (Batsch  1786a)  Stiles  and  Stevenson  1905a. 

1905.  Hydatigena  socialis  Batsch  1786a  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson  1905a;  this  combina- 
tion should  be  attributed  to  Stiles  and  Stevenson  1905a. 

1905.  Cysticercus  ccenurus  (Kuchenmeister  1853)  Koeberle'  1861a  of  Stiles  and  Steven- 
son 1905a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  (Tschudi  1837a)  Koeberl6 
1861a. 

1905.  Taenia  ccenurus  j( Kuchenmeister  1853)  v.  Beneden  1861a  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson 
1905a;  this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  (Tschudi  1837a)  Kiichen- 
meister  1853e. 

1905.  Ccencerus  cerebratis  Vet.  Ed.  Amer.  Sheep  Breeder  19055;  misprint. 

1908.   Tenia  cenurus  (Teller  1879a)  Germain  1908a. 

1908.  Taenia  cerebrales  (Law  1903a)  Luckey  1908n-;  misprint. 

1909.  T(aenia.)  ccenurns  Braun  1909;  in  Braun  u.  Ltihe  1909n-;  misprint. 
1909.  Ccenurus  eerebralis  Braun  1909;  in  Braun  u.  Liihe  1909<r;  misprint. 

1909.  Taenis  ccenurus  (Tschudi  1837a)  Hall  1909rr;  misprint. 

1910.  Taenia  ccenuris  Kildee  1910<r;  misprint. 

Acharius  (1782)  uses  the  form  T.  vesicularis  multiceps;  Cerebrina. 
As  Cerebrina  is  substituted  for  Multiceps,  used  in  generic  sense  in 
Goeze's  (1782a)  Tsenia  vesicularis,  cerebrina;  Multiceps,  it  has  been 
credited  as  an  erroneous  generic  synonym. 

In  crediting  the  genus  Hydatis  to  Virey  (1798a),  the  prior  use  of 
the  same  word  by  Goeze  (1782a)  has  been  taken  into  consideration; 


SYNONYMY  OP   MULflCEPS  MULTICEPS.  55 

Goeze,  however,  does  not  use  it  generically,  but  merely  as  a  common 
noun,  hence  this  word  as  used  by  him  has  no  standing  in  nomencla- 
ture. Stiles  and  Stevenson  (1905a)  in  passing  judgment  on  "Hydatis 
Goeze  1782a,"  given  by  them  in  the  synonymy  of  Echinococcus,  state 
in  comment,  "Very  doubtful  whether  this  is  used  in  generic  sense." 

Goeze  uses  the  word  Hydatis  to  refer  to  water  bladders,  apparently 
considered  as  nonparasitic,  found  in  animal  bodies;  in  fact,  uses  it 
in  just  the  sense  in  which  Hippocrates  and  other  Greeks  used  the 
same  word  "udartf,"  meaning  the  same  thing,  a  water  bladder. 
Goeze  denotes  by  it  substantially  the  same  things  that  are  included 
in  the  genus  Acephalocystis  Lsennec  (1804a),  with  the  essential  differ- 
ence that  the  objects  in  question  are  not  regarded  as  parasites,  and 
hence,  in  this  case,  not  as  animals.  Therefore  the  word  has  no  more 
standing  in  nomenclature  than  the  word  "Wasserblase,"  which  is 
regularly  used  as  its  equivalent.  Larval  cestodes  are  constantly 
referred  to  by  Goeze  in  this  work  as  "Eingeweidebandwurm"-  or 
"Blasenbandwurm,"  and  the  generic  and  specific  names  are  summed 
up  in  a  section  which  does  not  include  the  word  Hydatis  and  which 
precedes  any  use  of  this  word.  The  word  Hydatis  is  used  to  denote 
an  object  which  is  compared  to  or  contrasted  with  a  "Blasenband- 
wurm."  Thus  he  states  that  Tsenia  hydatigena  is  very  similar  to 
the  "Wasserblasen  (Hydatis)."  Again,  he  states  that  the  true 
water  bladders — "die  eigentlichen  Wasserblasen  (Hydatides)" — are 
very  different  from  the  bladders  in  which  bladderworms,  "Blasen- 
wurmer,"  live.  In  his  final  use  of  the  word  he  states  that  he  found  a 
bladder,  "Blase,"  in  the  liver  of  a  pig.  He  adds  that  it  was  no 
"Wasserblase  oder  Hydatis,"  for  on  opening  it  he  found  the  worm 
in  it.  If  Hydatis  is  a  genus  at  all  in  Goeze's  work,  it  is  a  genus  of 
larval  cestodes  or  "Blasenwiirmer."  The  references  show  that  it  is 
specifically  differentiated  from  such  forms. 

Sherborn  (1902a)  has  also  referred  the  genus  Hydatis  to  Virey 
(1798a).  Virey  calls  it  a  genus  and  appends  the  generic  characters. 

Sherborn  (1902a)  has  listed  Vermis  as  a  genus  of  Bloch  (1782a). 
Bloch's  genus  is  Vermis  vesicularis,  with  the  three  species  socialis, 
eremita,  and  teniseformis.  It  therefore  appears  that  the  genus  Vermis 
of  Sherborn  (1902a)  must  be  regarded  as  an  additional  synonym  of 
Multiceps. 

The  writer  attributes  the  form  Tsenia  (Cystotsenia)  canurus  to 
Diesing  (1863b),  and  C(ystotsenia)  coenurus  to  Benham  (190 la)  for 
the  reason  that  so  far  as  can  be  determined,  the  forms  in  question 
are  first  used  by  these  writers.  Leuckart's  (1863a)  responsibility  for 
the  form  Oystotsenia  ends  with  that  form.  The  fact  that  he  pro- 
posed this  as  a  subgenus  may  be  taken  to  imply  its  application  to  the 
forms  falling  within  the  definition  of  this  subgenus,  but  such  appli- 
cation involves  a  certain  judgment  of  cases  which  we  can  not  postu- 


56  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

late  as  perfectly  clear,  and  it  is  too  much  to  suppose  that  Leuckart 
should  be  held  responsible  for  any  or  all  forms  involving  the  name 
Cystotsenia  when  it  may  be  that  a  given  form  is  based  on  a  judgment 
or  an  error  for  which  Leuckart  would  not  care  to  be  responsible. 
When  a  writer  proposes  a  new  genus  or  subgenus  he  has  the  option  of 
also  proposing  the  new  combinations  involved  and  assuming  respon- 
sibility for  them,  or  of  leaving  such  an  act  and  its  responsibility  to 
some  one  else  and  only  assuming  the  responsibility  for  the  genus 
or  subgenus  proposed. 

The  reason  for  crediting  the  use  of  Coenurus  to  Schinz  (see  Cuvier 
1825a)  and  not  to  Cuvier  (1825a)  is  the  same  as  the  reason  why  Txnia 
cerebralis  is  credited  to  Gmelin  (1790a)  and  not  to  Linnaeus.  Schinz 
has  used  here  forms  not  used  in  the  French  edition  of  1817  of  which 
this  is  an  emended  translation,  and  it  is  obviously  unfair  to  hold 
Cuvier  responsible  for  forms  not  used  in  the  original  article. 

MULTICEPS  SERIALIS. 
HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  (p.  38)  that  Lsennec  (1804a)  stated 
that  the  gid  parasite  occurs  in  the  sheep,  the  cow,  and  perhaps  in  the 
rabbit,  and  that  this  reference  to  the  gid  parasite  in  the  rabbit  appears 
to  have  been  based  on  hunters'  reports  of  gid  in  rabbits.  It  has  also 
been  stated  that  Cloquet  (1818a)  included  the  rabbit  as  a  host  of 
the  gid  parasite  without  reservation,  but  his  statement  appears  to 
be  based  on  Lsennec's  (1804a  or  1812a)  article  and  is  therefore  of  no 
value.  Neither  of  these  articles,  then,  can  be  considered  as  erroneous 
records  of  Multiceps  serialis  under  the  name  of  Ccenurus  cerebralis. 

The  first  record  of  M.  serialis  is  that  of  de  Blainville  (1828a)  who 
described  a  cyst,  which  he  calls  an  Echinococcus,  from  the  peritoneal 
cavity  of  a  wild  rabbit.  He  noted  the  serial  arrangement  of  the 
heads,  which  afterwards  was  made  the  reason  for  the  specific  name, 
and  thought  that  it  might  be  a  new  species,  or  might  be  E.  veterinorum. 
Despite  de  Blainville's  decision  that  the  form  was  probably  EcJiino- 
coccus,  his  article  shows  evidence  of  a  misconception  of  that  genus 
and  of  errors  of  observation,  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  parasite 
was  Multiceps  serialis.  It  is  so  considered  by  Gervais  and  van 
Beneden  (1859b)  and  by  Railliet  (1882a). 

M.  serialis  is  a  widely  distributed  form,  long  considered  as  M. 
multiceps  or  confused  with  that  form  by  some  writers.  It  is  of  less 
economic  importance  than  M.  multiceps  owing  to  its  occurring  in  the 
connective  tissue  and  musculature  of  rodents  instead  of  in  the  cen- 
tral nervous  system  of  wild  and  domestic  ungulates,  as  is  the  case 
with  M.  multiceps. 

Five  years  after  de  Blainville's  (1828a)  record,  Rose  (1833a)  noted 
M.  serialis  in  rabbits  in  England  and  stated  that  warreners,  before 


HISTORICAL  SKETCH   OF   MULTICEPS   SERIALIS.  57 

sending  affected  rabbits  to  market,  punctured  the  tumor  caused  by 
the  parasite  and  squeezed  out  the  fluid.  Rose  described  the  pro- 
duction of  daughter  vesicles  by  budding,  but  did  not  find  this  or 
any  other  feature  a  sufficient  structural  difference  between  this  para- 
site and  the  gid  parasite  to  warrant  making  a  new  species.  Later, 
Rose  (1844a)  described  a  new  case  and  discussed  the  cyst  surround- 
ing the  parasite  and  the  external  budding  of  the  latter. 

Leblond  (1837a)  notes  that  Dr.  Emmanuel  Rosseau  sent  him  a  cyst 
a  little  larger  than  a  nut  from  between  the  spinal  membranes  of  a 
rabbit.  Leblond  identified  the  parasite  as  Ccenurus  cerebralis. 

Leblond's  specimen  was  later  examined  by  Gervais  (1847a),  who 
makes  a  new  species  of  it  on  the  basis  of  the  serial  arrangement  of 
the  heads  and  the  long  folded  neck.  From  the  first  feature  he 
named  it  Ccenurus  serialis.  Railliet  (1889o)  refers  this  name  to  an 
article  intheDictionnaireUniverseld'HistoireNaturelle  (v.  6,p.  729), 
under  date  of  1845.  This  reference  is  correct  for  the  date  1861, 
but  there  appears  to  be  no  such  reference  for  1845,  and  it  is  possible 
that  Railliet  has  erred  in  giving  this  date.  Gervais  calls  his  form 
Ccenurus  serialis  n.  sp.  in  1847,  and  it  seems  likely  that  this  is  the 
date  of  its  first  description.  Stiles  and  Stevenson  (1905a)  appear 
to  have  followed  Railliet  in  citing  "  C&nurus  serialis  Gervais,  1847a, 
98;  probably  1845,  729,  not  accessible  to  us." 

Baillet  (1858b)  produced  the  adult  tapeworm  in  the  dog  by  feeding 
the  crcnurus  from  the  rabbit,  and  described  it  but  did  not  name  it, 
as  both  the  adult  and  larva  seemed  very  similar  to  the  corresponding 
forms  of  the  gid  parasite.  Feeding  experiments  in  which  the  attempt 
was  made  to  infect  rabbits  and  sheep  with  the  proglottids  of  the 
adult  tapeworm  were  not  well  carried  out  and  showed  nothing. 

Later,  Baillet  (1863a)  produced  the  tapeworm  again  and  named 
it  Tsenia  serialis.  Proglottids  with  developed  eggs  were  fed  to 
rabbits  and  produced  the  crcnurus.  Ten  attempts  to  infect  rabbits 
with  the  eggs  of  the  adult  Multiceps  multiceps  and  five  attempts  to 
infect  sheep  with  the  eggs  of  the  adult  Multiceps  serialis  failed. 
Baillet  gives  a  very  full  description  of  the  adult  and  larval  M,  serialis. 

Perroncito  has  stood  out  against  the  validity  of  this  species.  He 
records  (Perroncito,  1875a)  a  coenurus  from  a  rabbit,  and  although  he 
finds  a  yellow  color  present  which  he  does  not  find  in  the  cerebral 
coenuri  of  ruminants,  he  nevertheless  considers  that  all  cocnuri  arise 
from  Txnia  coenurus.  Later,  Perroncito  (1882a)  finds  the  only  dif- 
ference between  the  rabbit  and  sheep  cosnuri  to  be  in  the  formation 
of  daughter  vesicles  in  the  former,  and  still  considers  them  the  same 
species.  At  a  quite  recent  date  (Perroncito,  1901a),  this  opinion  is 
still  adhered  to.  The  same  opinion  has  been  expressed  even  more 
recently  by  Friedberger  und  Frohner  (1904«). 


58 


THE   GID  PARASITE  AND   ALLIED   SPECIES. 


A  careful  study  of  M.  serialis  was  made  by  Reinitz  (1885a),  who 
concluded  that  Lindemann's  (1867a)  Canurus  lowzowi  was  M. 
serialis,  but  that  Boettcher's  (1862a)  Cysticercus  botryoides,  Pagen- 
stecher's  (1877a)  coenurus  from  Myopotamus  coypus,  and  Me"gnin's 
(1880d)  C&nurus  polytuberculosus  from  Dipus  sagitta  were  not. 

Kunsemuller  (1903a)  has  made  an  excellent  comparative  study  of 
M.  serialis  and  M.  cerebralis. 

Brandegee  (1890a)  records  the  parasite  from  the  United  States  and 
notes  that  two  species  of  rabbits  were  never  found  infected,  though 
hundreds  were  examined,  only  the  California  hare  being  infected. 
She  surmises  that  the  wolf  is  a  probable  host,  and  the  coyote,  lynx, 
and  fox  possible  hosts  of  the  adult  cestode. 

THE   HOSTS   AND  OCCUERENCES   OF  THE   LARVAL   MULTICEPS   SERIALIS. 

Inasmuch  as  the  list  of  doubtful  and  erroneous  records  is  very 
short,  such  cases  are  included  here  with  the  certain  and  probable 
cases  and  their  standing  given  in  the  discussion.  No  attempt  is 
made  to  distinguish  between  hares  and  rabbits  in  the  following  list. 
They  are  all  listed  as  rabbits. 

List  of  occurrences  claimed  for  the  larval  Multiceps  serialis. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Rabbit 

France 

De  Blainville  1828a 

One  case. 

Rabbit  (Lepuscuni- 

England  

Rose  1833a  

A  number  of  cases  implied. 

C  11  I  II  XI. 

Rabbit 

France 

Leblond  1837a 

One  case  from  vertebral  canal. 

Do  

England  

Rose  1844a  

One  new  case. 

Do  

France  

Gervais  1847a  

Leblond  's  specimen  described  as  a  new 

Do... 

.do.... 

Baillet  1858b  .  . 

species. 
Produced  adult  worm  in  dogs. 

Do  

do  

Baillct  1863a  

Produced  adult  and  larval  worm  by 

Squirrel  

England  

Cobbokl  18fi4b  

feeding;   failed  to  infect  sheep  with 
eggs  of   M.  serialis  or  rabbits  with 
eggs  of  M.  multiceps. 
Host  from  America. 

Rabbit  

United  States  (?).. 

Valentin  (date?)  

Not  seen;  cited  from  Leuckart  (1865a.  ) 

Rabbit  (L.  timidus). 

Russia  

Lindemann  1867a  ...  . 

Descril)ed    as    ConuTus    lowzowi;  not 

Rabbit... 

France... 

Troisier  1874a.. 

available;  considered  by  subsequent 
writers  as  M.  serialis. 
One  case. 

Do  

do    ... 

Arloing  [18757] 

Per  Railliet  1882a;  Arloing  in  Brunei 

Do... 
Do  

Italy  

England 

Perroncito  1875a.  .  .  . 
Cobbold  1876b 

1875a  does  not  claim  to  have  found  it. 
One  case. 
Rose's  specimens  in  Guv's  Museum  and 

Do... 

Scotland  

...    do  

some  m  Oxford  collection. 
One  specimen  in  Cobbold  's  collection 

Do  

France  

Davaine  1877a.  . 

One  case  recorded  and  others  claimed; 

Coypu     (  Mynpota- 

Germany  

Pagenstecher  1877a  

specimen  exhibited  first   shown  !>v 
Bailly  in  1861;  claims  that  Prince  has 
found  this  form  in  France. 
From  Berlin  Zoological  Gardens. 

mus  coy/rtw). 
Rabbit  

Italy  

Perroncito  1878h..., 

Listed  from  title;  article  not  available. 

Squirrel      (Sciurus 

England.  .  .. 

Cobbold  1879b 

Same  case  as  Cobbold  (18<>41>). 

vulpinust). 
Rabbit  

England  (?) 

do 

Note  that  Alston  has  found  cccnurus  In 

Klippdas  (  Ilyrax  ca- 

Not  given  

....do  

rabbit. 
Error,  due  to  confusing  records  of  Ger- 

imi.ii.it. 
Gray  squirrel  

United  States  

Stewart  1880a. 

vais  (1847a)  and  Pagenstecher  (1877a). 
Probably    a    reference    to    Cobbold  "s 

Rabbit  

do  

do  

(IHMb)case. 
Claimed  to  occur;  no  cases  or  authorities 

cited. 

OCCURRENCES   OF    MULTICEPS   SERIALIS.  59 

List  of  occurrences  claimed  for  the  larval  Multiceps  serial-is — Continued. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

Squirrel      (Sciurus 

France 

Cagny  1882a. 

One  case. 

vulyaris). 
Rabbit 

do  . 

do  

One  specimen  exhibited  by  Railliet  in 

Do 

Italy 

Perroncito  1882a.  .  . 

discussion. 
Number  of  cases  not  given. 

Do 

Germany  (?)..  .  . 

Braun  1885c  

One  specimen. 

Do               

Russia  (?)  

Reinitz  1885a  

Three  specimens  studied. 

Do 

France 

Railliet  1889n  

One  case. 

Do               ... 

.do  

Railliet  1889o  

Second  spinal  case;  simultaneous  con- 

Rabbit             

New  Zealand  

Thomas  1889a  

nective  tissue  infection  with  9  other 
coenuri. 
Not  available;  cited  from  Braun  (1894a). 

Rabbit  (Lepus  cali- 

United  States 

Brandegee  1890a    . 

Manv  cases  in  California;  paper  read  in 

farnicus). 
Rabbit 

France 

Villain    and    Bascou 

1882. 
Not  available;  cited  from  Morot  (1900c); 

Do 

do 

1890a. 

Leclerc  1890a 

one  case. 
Not  available;  cited  from  Morot  (1900c); 

Do  

.do  

Railliet  18911  

several  cases. 
One  case;  parasite  lived  over  2  years. 

Rabbit    (L.    varia- 

Russia 

Voigt  1891a    .  . 

One  case. 

bilis). 
Rabbit  (L.  califor- 

United  States. 

Curtice  1892g  

Number  of  cases  not  given;  in  Texas 

nicns  and  L.  tcii- 
anus). 
Rabbit 

England 

Robinson  1892a 

and  California. 
One  case'  scolices  with  6  suckers. 

Do  
Do 

Italy  
Japan 

Condorelli-M  a  u  g  e  r  i 
1893a. 
Janson  1893c 

One  case;  under  pericardium. 
One  case;  listed  as  Ccenurus  ccrebralis. 

Do 

France 

Megnin  1896. 

Not  available;  cited  from  Morot  (1900c); 

Do 

do 

Lucet  1897b 

several  cases. 
One  case;  28  coBnuri. 

Do  

.do. 

Vignon  1897a  .  .   . 

Not  available;  cited  from  Morot  (1900c), 

Do  

United  States. 

Ward  1897  b... 

who  considers  Vignon's  Echinococciis 
a  coenurus. 
Common  in  Nebraska. 

Horse  

..     .do  

Stiles  1898a  

Doubtful  case,  already  noted  under  M. 

Rabbit... 

Italy 

Bosso  1898a  .  .  . 

multiceps. 
One  case. 

Rabbit  (L.  callotis). 

United  States. 

Hassall  1898a.  .  . 

Specimens  seen  by  Stiles  or  Hassall. 

Rabbit    (L.    cuni- 

Not  North  Amer- 

.do 

Do. 

culus). 
Rabbit  . 

lea. 
France 

Railliet  1899b 

Specimen  with  many  abnormal  sco- 

Do   

..     .do  

Morot  1900c... 

lices. 
Four  cases  with  4,  11,  20,  and  70  coenuri, 

Do.. 

.do.... 

Gallier  1900a.  . 

in  each  host;  1  in  eye  orbit. 
One  case. 

Do  

Siberia    . 

Von  Linstow  1901e.. 

Four   specimens    in    St.    Petersburg 

Do... 

Italy    . 

Parona  1902f  .  . 

museum. 
Two  cases. 

Do   . 

France 

Buysson  1903a 

Rabbit    (L.    cuni- 

Germany  (?) 

Kunsemiiller  1903a 

One  case*  specimen  collected  in  1874. 

c  a  lux  domcsticus). 
Rabbit... 

England.  ... 

Byerly  1905a  .  . 

One  case. 

Do  

..     .do  

Jowett  19050.  .  . 

Has  found  it. 

Do.  .. 

United  States  

Ransom  1905d  

Specimen  No.  1823  figured. 

Do.  .     . 

Scotland 

Taylor  1905a. 

Goat... 

India  ... 

Gaiger  1907a. 

Do. 

Do... 

do  

Holterbach  1907a. 

Note  of  Gaiger's  (1907a)  case. 

Rabbit... 

Not  given 

.do 

Sic. 

Cat  

.do 

.do  .    . 

Sic;  error. 

Squirrel  

.do.... 

.do.... 

Sic. 

Sheep  

...do.... 

...do.... 

Sic;  error. 

Horse  

.do 

.do 

Sic. 

Rabbit  (L.  califor- 
nicus). 
Rabbit  • 

United  States  
...  .do  

S.   E.    Piper,  in  litt. 
Apr.  14.  1908. 
Curtice,  in  litt.  July 

In  Nevada;  several  coenuri  fed  to  dog. 
In  Colorado  and  California  in  1887  and 

Goat  

India.  .. 

26,  1909. 
Dey  1909a 

1888. 
One  case:  cysts  In  brain  and  connective 

Rabbit 

Switzerland 

Galli-Valerio  1909a 

tissue. 

Do  

England  

Gray  1909a  

Has  seen  it  in  eye  orbit. 

Do.  .. 

France 

Henry  1909a 

Cosnurus  attained  volume  of  800  c.  c. 

Do. 

New  South  Wales 

Johnston  1909a 

Listed 

Rabbit  (Oryctolagus 

Victoria(?)  

Sweet  1909a.  .. 

One  case. 

cuniculus). 
Rabbit  

United  States 

Dr.    Young    in    litt. 

In  North  Dakota. 

"Sage  rabbit".. 

.    .do. 

Oct.  9,  1909. 
Thos.   Large    in  litt 

In  Idaho. 

Rabbit  

United  States 

Jan.  6,  1910. 
Hall  1910/7 

This  article. 

60 


THE  GID  PARASITE  AND,  ALLIED  SPECIES. 


The  following  specimens  of  M.  serialis  from  the  United  States  are 
available  to  the  writer. 


Host. 

Locality. 

Collector  and  date. 

Collection. 

I.fpux  californicus  

California  

Curtice  1890. 

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  1823. 

l.i  pl  ix  sp.  

(?) 

(?)  1894 

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  1826 

Lepus  callotis  

New  Mexico  

Townsend  1896 

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  2798. 

Lepus  sp  .  . 

(?) 

(?) 

H    A.  I  coll.  No.  2G08 

Do.  . 

Michigan  . 

Hayward  1904 

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  3948 

Lepus  cali/ornicus  

California  

Adams  1905... 

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  3889. 

Lepus  c.  walla-walla  

Oregon  

Piper  1907  

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  14728. 

Do.  . 

do 

do 

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  14729. 

Do  

.do  

do 

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  14730. 

Lepus  sp  

Nevada  

Hall  1910  

B.  A.  I.  coll.  No.  15599. 

Do  

Nebraska  

Young  1905  

Coll.  Hall. 

The  first  of  the  above  lists  shows  that  Multiceps  serialis  has  been 
claimed  to  occur  in  the  hare,  rabbit,  squirrel,  coypu,  goat,  horse, 
klippdachs,  sheep,  and  cat.  Records  of  its  occurrence  in  the  hare 
and  rabbit  are  undoubtedly  correct,  the  records  from  the  squirrel 
are  probably  correct,  those  from  the  coypu  and  goat  may  be  correct, 
the  record  from  the  horse  is  doubtful,  as  heretofore  indicated,  and 
those  from  the  hyrax,  sheep,  and  cat  are  errors. 

Cobbold  (1864b)  found  a  ccenurus  in  an  American  squirrel,  Stiurus 
vulpinusl,  which  he  thought  might  be  the  same  species  that  Rose 
(1833a)  found  in  "bladdery  rabbits."  This  conclusion  appears  to 
be  substantiated  by  the  subsequent  finding  by  Cagny  (1882a)  of  a 
ccenurus  in  a  squirrel,  Sciurus  vulgaris,  which  had  been  caught  young 
and  kept  three  years.  Cagny's  specimen  was  examined  by  Me'gnm 
ancl  Railliet  who  pronounced  it  Coenurus  serialis.  Kunsemuller 
(1903a)  thinks  Cobbold's  ccenurus  may  be  C.  serialis.  If  these 
authorities  are  right  in  their  identification  of  this  parasite,  its  rarity 
in  this  host  is  to  be  expected,  as  the  squirrel's  food  is  of  such  a  nature, 
consisting  as  it  does  largely  of  nuts,  that  fecal  contamination  by 
carnivorous  hosts  of  the  adult  worm  would  only  occur  very  rarely. 

Stewart  (1880a)  writing  from  the  United  States,  says:  "The 
presence  of  this  parasite  [Ccenurus  cerebralis}  has  been  discovered  in 
the  liver  of  our  gray  squirrel  and  in  rabbits,  as  well  as  in  numerous 
sheep  in  this  country."  It  is  probable  that  the  allusion  to  the  para- 
site from  the  squirrel  is  a  reference  to  Cobbold's  (1864b)  case  of  a 
ccenurus  in  an  American  squirrel.  The  reference  to  ccenurus  forms 
having  been  found  in  American  rabbits  seems  likely  enough  from 
our  knowledge  of  the  common  occurrence  of  M.  serialis  in  this 
country,  but  Stewart's  record  is  uncertain,  as  he  does  not  claim  to 
have  seen  such  a  parasite,  nor  does  he  cite  anyone  who  has. 

Lindemann  (1867 a),  according  to  a  review  by  Rudnew  (Linde- 
mann  1868b),  described  a  Ccenurus  lowzowi  from  the  rabbit  in  Russia, 
in  an  article  not  available  to  the  writer.  This  has  since  been  very 
generally  regarded  as  C.  serialis.  by  helminthological  writers,  among 


DISCUSSION  OF  OCCURRENCES  OF   MULTICEPS  SERIALIS.  61 

whom  are  Pagenstecher  (1877a),  Moniez  (1880a),  Braun  (1897a), 
and  Kunsemiiller  (1903a).  The  review  of  1868  says  there  were  no 
hooks  in  this  form  but  other  writers  say  the  hooks  were  all  the  same 
size.  Pagenstecher  (187 7 a)  says  they  were  all  the  same  size  and 
finds  the  same  thing  in  one  scolex  of  his  coenurus  from  Myopotamus 
coypus.  Moniez  (1880a)  says  the  same  and  considers  it  either  an 
error  in  observation  or  a  teratological  fact.  Railliet  (1899b)  has 
found  a  great  number  of  abnormalities  in  Multiceps  serialis.  In 
view  of  this  fact  and  the  unanimity  of  opinion  concerning  this  form 
it  has  been  accepted  here  as  M.  serialis. 

Pagenstecher  (1877 a)  describes  a  cosnurus  which  he  identifies  as 
Coznurus  serialis  from  the  neck  of  Myopotamus  coypus.  Reinitz 
(1885a)  and  Braun  (1897a)  think  this  form  from  the  coypu  is  not  M. 
serialis.  Moniez  (1880a)  and  Railliet  (1882a)  accept  it  as  M.  seri- 
alis, and  Kunsemtiller  (1903a)  states  that  he  agrees  with  Moniez 
and  Railliet  and  disagrees  with  Reinitz  and  Braun.  In  view  of 
this  disagreement,  the  form  is  provisionally  accepted  as  M.  serialis, 
as  originally  described. 

Cobbold  (1879b)  has  the  following: 

The  klipdas  or  dasse  (Hyrax  capensis)  is  infested  by  a  tapeworm.  *  *  *  Under 
the  name  of  Coenurus  serialis  a  larval  cestode  has  been  described  by  Gervais,  the 
same  parasite  being  called  Arhynchotxnia  critica  by  Pagenstecher  ("Zur  Natur- 
geschichte  der  Cestoden."  *  *  *). 

In  the  index  this  appears  as  "  Coenurus  serialis  of  the  hyrax." 

Cobbold  is  in  error  in  stating  that  Gervais  described  Coenurus 
serialis  from  the  hyrax.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  his  specimen  was 
from  the  rabbit.  Moniez  (1880a)  notes  that  Cobbold  has  confused 
Pagenstecher' s  (1877a)  statements,  and  Railliet  (1882a)  has  stated 
that  Cobbold  has  listed  C.  serialis  from  Ilyrax  capensis  as  a  result  of 
some  confusion. 

Gaiger's  (1907^)  and  Dey's  (1909oO  records  of  M.  serialis  from  the 
goat  in  India  are  provisionally  accepted;  a  more  extended  discus- 
sion of  these  and  other  forms  will  be  given  in  a  subsequent  paper 
dealing  in  part  with  the  morphology  of  Multiceps  spp.  Holterbach's 
review  of  Gaiger's  (1907/?)  paper  contains  a  number  of  errors  in  the 
list  of  hosts  of  M.  serialis. 

The  list  of  occurrences  shows  that  the  parasite  has  been  reported 
from  France,  England,  Scotland,  Italy,  Russia,  Siberia,  Switzerland, 
Australia,  New  Zealand,  Japan,  India,  and  the  United  States. 
Whether  the  parasite  occurs  in  Germany  is  doubtful.  Pagenstecher's 
(1877a)  co3nurus  was  collected  from  a  coypu  in  the  Berlin  Zoological 
Garden,  and  hence  the  origin  of  the  parasite  is  in  doubt.  Reinitz 
(1885a)  does  not  state  where  his  three  specimens  were  collected, 
but  says  that  one  was  the  specimen  discussed  by  Braun  (1883c) 
before  the  Dorpat  Naturforscher  Gesellschaft  and  the  other  two 


62  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

were  from  Prof.  Semmer.  Braun  (1883c)  says  of  the  specimen  men- 
tioned that  he  owes  it  to  "dem  Herrn.  stud.  med.  Hasenjager," 
from  which  it  would  appear  that  it  was  collected  in  Germany.  Later, 
however,  Braun  (1897  a)  lists  the  parasite  from  Russia  on  the  authority 
of  Reinitz  (1885a)  and  Voigt  (189 la),  but  in  giving  the  distribution 
of  this  form  he  does  not  mention  Germany.  Still  later,  Braun  (Braun 
u.  Liihe,  1909a-),  writing  of  the  tapeworms  of  the  domestic  animals, 
refers  to  "Die  in  Deutschland  noch  nicht  wohl  aber  in  Frankreich 
beobachtete  und  sicher  auch  in  Russland  bei  Hunden  workom- 
menden  T.  serialis  Baill."  On  the  face  of  it,  this  statement  can 
hardly  be  taken  to  mean  more  than  that  the  adult  T.  serialis  has  not 
yet  been  observed  in  dogs  in  Germany,  and  Braun's  English  translator 
(Braun  u.  Liihe,  1910oO  does  not  seem  to  have  sufficient  reason, 
especially  as  regards  Germany  for  the  statement  that  "  T.  serialis 
Baill.  *  *  *  occurs  in  dogs  in  France,  and  probably  also  in 
Russia,  though  not  in  Germany."  Kunsemuller  (1903a)  does  not 
give  any  locality  for  his  specimens. 

The  common  occurrence  of  M.  serialis  in  rabbits  in  the  western 
part  of  the  United  States  makes  it  unlikely  that  this  parasite  was 
imported  into  this  country  from  the  Old  World,  while  its  wide  dis- 
tribution abroad  and  its  apparent  absence  from  the  eastern  part  of 
this  country  makes  it  equally  unlikely  that  it  was  carried  abroad 
from  this  country.  Its  presence  in  Oregon  and  in  Siberia  points  to 
the  strong  possibility  of  its  having  spread  by  way  of  far  northern 
routes  over  its  present  wide  range  of  distribution. 

M.  serialis  has  been  recorded  from  the  vertebral  canal  by  Leblond 
(1837a)  and  Railliet  (1889o),  in  the  latter  case  with  an  accompanying 
infection  of  the  more  usual  connective-tissue  locations.  It  has  been 
recorded  from  the  pericardium  once  by  Condorelli-Maugeri  (1893a), 
from  the  eyelid  by  Byerly  (1905^),  and  from  the  orbit  of  the  eye  by 
Gray  (1909^),  and  by  Mr.  S.  E.  Piper  of  the  Bureau  of  Biological 
Survey  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  in  data  furnished  the  writer. 

The  number  of  parasites  varies  from  one,  a  very  common  record, 
to  70  in  one  case  of  Morot  (1900c),  and  in  size  the  cyst  may  attain 
a  volume  of  800  c.  c.,  as  in  the  case  of  Henry  (1909 A-).  The  parasite 
may  live  over  two  years  according  to  Railliet  (1891i).  Abnormal 
specimens  have  been  noted  by  Pagenstecher  (1877a)  from  the  coypu, 
by  Robinson  (1892a),  Railliet  (1899b),  and  Galli-Valerio  (1909ar), 
from  the  rabbit,  and  Lindemann's  (1867a)  specimen  was  probably 
such. 

Successful  operations  for  the  parasite  have  been  noted  by  Railliet 
(1889n)  and  Byerly  (1905^). 

Mr.  Piper,  who  has  furnished  the  Bureau  collection  with  speci- 
mens as  noted  above,  has  also  furnished  us  data  stating  that  the 


OCCURRENCES  OF  ADULT  MULTICEPS   SERIALIS.  63 

parasite  was  found  in  7  out  of  12  rabbits  examined  in  Oregon,  a  pint 
of  cysts  being  taken  from  the  peritoneal  cavity  of  one.  Mr.  Piper 
also  collected  M.  serialis  in  Nevada  in  1908,  as  noted  in  the  table, 
and  fed  a  number  to  a  dog.  The  dog  was  shipped  to  this  laboratory, 
but  did  not  develop  the  adult  parasite,  probably  owing  to  diarrhea 
resulting  from  intestinal  irritation  by  too  many  scolices.  The  writer 
has  since  collected  M.  serialis  in  Nevada,  and  developed  the  adult 
worm  by  feeding  scolices  to  a  dog.  Mr.  Graybill,  of  this  laboratory, 
has  also  collected  M.  serialis  in  Texas  and  fed  it  to  a  dog.  Doctor 
Young,  of  the  University  of  North  Dakota,  writes  under  date  of  Octo- 
ber 9,  1909,  that  there  is  a  specimen  in  the  university  collection, 
unlabeled,  and  that  rabbits  which  appear  to  be  infected  are  seen  in 
North  Dakota;  he  himself  has  seen  such  a  rabbit.  Doctor  Shantz, 
of  the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry,  has  seen  such  rabbits  in  Kansas  and 
Colorado,  and  Mr.  E.  F.  Chilcott  of  the  same  Bureau  says  they  are 
common  in  South  Dakota. 

Kaupp's  (19Wa)  statement  that  M.  serialis  is  not  common  in  the 
United  States  is  hardly  accurate.  In  certain  Western  States  it  is 
very  common. 

The  occurrence  of  the  larval  parasite  in  the  muscles  of  its  host, 
especially  in  the  leg  muscles,  a  common  site,  and  its  occurrence  in 
such  relatively  enormous  sizes,  numbers,  or  quantities  as  are  given 
hi  the  more  extreme  cases  of  Henry  (1909^),  Morot  (1900c),  and  Mr. 
Piper,  may  be  looked  upon  as  an  adaptation  favorable  to  the  parasite, 
serving  to  impede  the  locomotion  of  the  secondary  host  and  so 
increase  the  likelihood  of  its  being  captured  by  some  carnivore  which 
may  serve  as  the  primary  host  of  the  parasite.  Brandegee  (1900a) 
has  also  pointed  out  the  presence  of  an  adaptation  here. 

THE    OCCURRENCES    OF   THE    ADULT    MULTICEPS    SERIALIS. 

The  dog  is  the  only  host  in  which  the  adult  Multiceps  serialis  has 
been  found  or  produced.  Thomas's  (1889a)  attempts  to  infect  cats 
and  ferrets  by  feeding  them  the  larval  cestodes  failed,  according  to 
Braun  (1894a),  and  a  surmise  such  as  that  of  Brandegee  (1890a)  that 
the  wolf,  coyote,  lynx,  and  fox  may  act  as  hosts,  has,  of  course,  only 
the  value  of  a  surmise.  At  the  same  time,  Baillet  (1866b)  early 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  larval  parasite  was  found  in  the 
wild  rabbit  more  commonly  than  in  the  domestic  rabbit,  and  sur- 
mised that  the  usual  host  was  some  wild  carnivore. 

Galli-Valerio  (1909aO  failed  to  develop  the  adult  worm  on  ingesting 
two  living  heads  from  the  larval  parasite.  The  writer  also  has 
similarly  failed  to  develop  the  adult  worm  on  ingesting  three  living 
heads  from  the  larval  parasite. 


64  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED  SPECIES. 

List  of  occurrences  of  the  adult  Multiceps  serialis  in  the  dog. 


Locality. 

Authority. 

Notes  and  comments. 

France  

Baillet  1858b... 

By  experiment. 

Do... 

Baillet  1863a  

Do. 

Do 

Baillet  1866b.. 

Found  several  times. 

Do  

Bertolus     and     Chauveau 

One  case  in  a  cosmopolitan  "dog  of  the  regiment." 

Italy        

1879a. 
Perroncito  1878a  

Not  available;  based  on  Railliet  's  (1882a)  state- 

Do   

Perroncito  1882a  

ment  that  Perroncito  failed  to  infect  sheep  from 
Canwus  serialis. 
By  experiment. 

New  Zealand 

Thomas  1889a. 

Not  available*  cited  from  Braun  (1894a)-  by  ex- 

France 

Neumann  1892a  .. 

periment. 
Several  times. 

Japan  . 

Janson  1893c  

By  experiment. 

France  

Railliet  1893a  

By  experiment;  claimed  that  Neumann  has  also 

North  America  

Ward  1895b  

produced  it;  I  can  not  verify  claim. 
Listed. 

Do  

Sommer  1896c  

Stated  on  the  authority  of  Stiles. 

United  States. 

Ward  1897b  

One  case  out  of  20  dogs  in  Nebraska*  others  im- 

Do 

Stiles  1898a 

plied. 
Parasite  seen  by  Stiles. 

Do 

Stevenson  1904b  

Two  cases  out  of  35  dogs  in  Nebraska;  20  speci- 

Australia 

Cobb  1905a  

mens. 
One  specimen;  identification  not  positive. 

United  States. 

Ransom  1905d  

Specimen  No.  2839  figured. 

India  

Gaiger  1907a  

By  experiment. 

New  South  Wales. 

Johnston  1909a  .   . 

Rare. 

United  States    

Hall  1910/J  

This  article. 

ECONOMIC    IMPORTANCE. 

As  has  been  stated,  Multiceps  serialis  is  of  comparatively  little 
economic  importance.  It  deserves  attention  from  an  economic  stand- 
point largely  because  some  scientists,  especially  the  Italian,  insist  on 
identifying  it  with  the  highly  important  M.  multiceps. 

Rose  (1833a)  states,  as  before  mentioned,  that  when  warreners 
meet  with  infested  rabbits  they  puncture  the  bladder,  squeeze  out 
the  fluid  and  send  the  animal  to  market.  According  to  Martel 
(1909or),  this  custom  of  puncturing  through  the  skin  of  infected  rab- 
bits is  still  in  vogue  in  France.  While  the  idea  of  eating  the  parasite 
is  not  a  pleasing  one,  the  danger  from  doing  so  is  negligible  as  the 
parasite  is  apparently  not  transmissible  to  man,,  as  Galli-Valerio's 
(1909or)  and  the  writer's  experiments  along  this  line  indicate.  Moreau 
(1909«r)  in  a  note  on  abattoir  inspection  in  France,  lists  muscular  coe- 
nurosis  of  hares  and  rabbits  as  sufficient  cause  for  total  condemnation  of 
the  carcass,  but  probably  this  practice  would  only  be  followed  in  such 
cases  as  those  listed  by  Morot  (1900c),  where  rabbits  were  condemned 
owing  to  infestation  with  11,  20,  and  70  cosnuri  each.  In  Morot's 
cases,  a  rabbit  infested  with  only  4  ccenuri  was  returned  for  food 
after  the  removal  of  the  diseased  parts.  The  writer  finds  that  in  the 
western  United  States  the  carcasses  of  rabbits  infected  with  M.  serialis 
are  thrown  away  as  unfit  for  food. 


SYNONYMY   OF   MULTICEPS   SEEIALIS.  65 

SYNONYMY. 

The  generic  synonymy  has  already  been  given  under   Multiceps 
multiceps. 

Species  MULTICEPS  SERIALIS  (Gervais  18473)  Stiles  and  Stevenson  19053. 

1828.  E  [chinococcus]  veterinorum(t)  of  de  Blainville  1828a;  misdetermination . 
1833.  Ccenurus  cerebralis  Lamarck  and  Rudolph!  of  Rose  1833a;   this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  Rudolphi  1808a;  error;  misdetermination. 
•1837.  Csenurus  cerebralis  of  Leblond  1837a;  error;  misdetermination. 
1844.  Ccenurus  cerebralis  of  Rose  1844a;  misdetermination. 
1847.  Ccenurus  serialis  Gervais  1847a. 
1855.  Ccenurus  serdalis  Gervais  of  Goldberg  1855a;  in  synonomy  of  Tsenia  ccenurus; 

this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  Goldberg  1855a;  misprint. 
1863.   Tsenia  serialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Baillet  1863a;  first  naming  of  strobila  form. 
1863.  Ccenurus  cerebralis?  leporis  cuniculi  Baillet  of  Diesing  1863b;  in  synonomy  of 

Tsenia  ccenurus;  not  at  present  available,  cited  from  Diesing  1864a,  identical; 

this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  Diesing  1863b. 

1863.  Tsenia  ccenuri  cuniculi  Baillet  of  Diesing  1863b;  in  synonomy  of  Tsenia  ccenurus; 

this  combination  should  be  attributed  to  Diesing  1863b. 

1864.  Ccenurus  cuniculi  (Diesing  1863b)  Cobbold  1864b;  name  taken  from  MSS.  of 

Rose. 

1867.  Ccenurus  lowzowi  Lindemann   1867a;  not  available,   cited  from  Lindemann 

1868b;  same  form  used  once  by  Braun  1894a. 

1868.  Tsenia  ccenurus  of  Cobbold  1867a;  error. 

1877.  Ccenurus  loivtzowi  Lindemann  of  Pagenstecher  1877a;  this  combination  should 
be  attributed  to  Pagenstecher  1877a;  misspelling. 

1877.  Ccenurus  nov.  spec,  of  Pagenstecher  1877a;  Pagenstecher  refers  thus  to  the  form 
which  he  identifies  as  Ccenurus  serialis. 

1877.  Ccenurus  serialis  Gervais  of  Davaine  1877a;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Davaine  1877a;  misspelling. 

1877.   Tseniaserialis  Baillet  of  Davaine  1877a;  space  omitted. 

1879.  Arhynchotsenia  critica  Pagenstecher  of  Cobbold  1879b;  error. 

1882.  Caenurus  serialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Perroncito  1882a. 

1882.  Csenurus  saerialis  Gervais  of  Perroncito  1882a;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Perroncito  1882a;  misspelling. 

1882.  Ccenurus  serialis  Baillet  of  Ziirn  1882<r;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 
to  Gervais  184 7a. 

1889.  "Ccenurus spec.?  Pagenstecher  .  .  .  nonCoen.sma&sGerv."ofvonLinstowl889a. 

1894.   Tsenia  echinococcus  of  Herff  1894b;  misdetermination. 

1897.  Ccenurus  lowzowii  Braun  1897a;  misspelling. 

1897.  Ccenurus  lowtzoivii  Braun  1897a;  misspelling. 

1898.  Cenuro  serialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Bosso  1898<r. 

1900.  Taenia  (Caenurus)  socialis  (Bloch  1780a)  Gallier  1900a;  error. 

1901.  C[ystotaenia]  serialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Benham  190 la. 

1901.  Coenurus  serialis  Baill.  of  Gamble  1901<r;  this  combination  should  be  attributed 
to  Gervais  1847a. 

1901.  T[aenia]' serialis  Ball,  of  Gamble  1901<r;  misprint  for  Baill. 

1901.  Caenurus  saerialis  Gervais  of  Perroncito  1901a;  this  combination  should  be  at- 
tributed to  Perroncito  1882a. 

1901.   Tenia  serialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Perroncito  1901a. 

1901.  T[senia]  (Coenurus)  serialis  Gervais  of  Vaullegeard  1901a;  this  combination 
should  be  attributed  to  (Gervais  1847a)  Vaullegeard  1901a. 

1903.   Tcenia  serialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Thierry  1903a. 


66  THE  GID  PARASITE  AND  ALLIED   SPECIES. 

]905.  Caenuri  cuniculi  (Diesing  1863b)  Byerly  1905;-;  plural. 

1905.  Ccenurus  serialias  Byerly  1905?-;  misprint. 

1905.  Ccenurus  cerialis  Byerly  1905;-;  misprint . 

1905.  Coenurus  scrialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Davaine  1877a  of  Stiles  and  Stevenson  1905a; 

Davaine  1877a  is  responsible  for  specific  name;  scrialis  is  not  Gervais  184 7a. 

1909.  Cysticcrcus  serialis  (Gervais  1847a)  Gray  1909n-. 

1909.  Tsenia  serialis  Bailet  of  Sweet  1909«r;  misprint  for  Baillet. 

1910.  Ccenurus  serialis  Gervala  of  Johnston  1910<r;  misprint  for  Gervais. 

Herff's  (1894b)  statement  that  Tsenia  echinococcus  is  very  common 
in  the  muscles  of  the  jack  rabbit  in  Texas  may  be  considered  as 
probably  erroneous.  Sommer  (1895b)  says  of  this:  "Herff  must, 
beyond  question,  refer  to  Ccenurus  serialis."  Stiles  also,  in  his 
review  of  Herff  (1895a),  states  that  this  is  probably  C.  serialis. 
Herff's  (1895b)  later  statement  that  the  parasite  was  a  "Compound 
cyst  with  taenia  heads  attached  to  the  walls,  or  sometimes  only  hook- 
lets  floating  in  the  liquid  of  the  cysts,"  and  his  statement  that  the 
tapeworm,  which  he  calls  T.  echinococcus,  from  the  dog,  was  not  more 
than  one  inch  long,  are  not  convincing.  So  far  as  available  records 
show,  T.  echinococcus  is  very  rare  in  the  rabbit,  and  the  fact  that 
Herff  finds  a  parasite  very  common  hi  this  host  is  itself  evidence 
that  the  parasite  was  probably  not  an  echinococcus.  On  the  other 
hand,  M.  serialis  is  very  common  in  the  muscles  of  rabbits  in  the 
United  States,  and  has  been  reported  from  Texas.  The  weight  of 
evidence  favors  the  idea  that  Herff's  "compound  cyst"  was  M. 
serialis.  For  this  reason  Tsenia  echinococcus  of  Herff  (1894b)  is  in- 
cluded as  a  synonym  of  Multiceps  serialis. 

MULTICEPS    LEMTJRIS. 
HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 

Cobbold  (1859d)  described  a  coenurus  from  the  liver  and  thorax 
of  Lemur  maco.  (Von  Linstow  (1878a)  has  corrected  this  host  name 
to  read  Lemur  macaco.)  Later  Cobbold  (1861e)  named  this  parasite 
Coenurus  lemuris.  In  macroscopic  appearance  it  does  not  resemble 
M.  multiceps  or  M.  serialis,  and  from  the  host  and  location  it  is  more 
reasonable  to  accept  it  as  a  new  species  than  to  attempt  to  refer  it  to 
either  of  the  two  species  mentioned.  It  has  been  listed  as  certainly 
or  probably  distinct  by  Diesing  (1864a),  von  Linstow  (1878a), 
Railliet  (1882a),  and  Kunsemiiller  (1903a).  On  the  other  hand 
Moniez  (1880a)  thinks  this  form  probably  belongs  with  Pagenstecher's 
(1877a)  coenurus  from  Myopotamus  coy  pus  as  a  specimen  of  Multiceps 
serialis,  and  Pagenstecher  also  states  this  as  probable. 

SYNONYMY. 

Species  MULTICEPS  LEMURIS  (Cobbold  i86ie)  Hall  igiotf. 

1861.  Ccenurus  lemuris  Cobbold  1861e. 

1880.  Coenurus  lemuri  Cobbold  of  M6gnin  1880p;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  M6gnin  1880p;  misspelling. 


MULTICEPS  POLYTUBERCULOSUS MULTICEPS  SPALACIS.  67 

1880.  Coenurus  leinuri  Cobbled  of  Megnin  1880p;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Megnin  1880p;  misprint  for  Oobbold. 

1894.  Ccenurus  lemoris  Cobb.  1861  of  Braun  1894a;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Braun  1894a. 

MULTICEPS  POLYTUBERCULOSUS. 
HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 

Megnin  (1879d)  describes  a  coenurus  from  the  leg  of  the  jerboa 
(Dipus  sagitta) .  The  following  year  Megnin  (1 880d )  named  it  Coenurus 
polytuberculosus  and  published  a  more  adequate  description.  From 
the  structure  of  the  opaque,  tuberculate  external  coat  and  of  the 
hooks  it  seems  reasonably  certain  that  this  form  must  be  retained 
as  a  distinct  species.  Reinitz  (1885a)  and  Braun  (1897a)  agree 
that  this  parasite  is  not  M.  serialis,  and  Kunsemiiller  (1903a)  does 
not  think  it  likely. 

SYNONYMY. 

Species  MULTICEPS  POLYTUBERCULOSUS  (Megnin  i88od)  Hall  igictf. 

1879.  "Coanure  polytuberculeux"  of  Megnin  1879d. 
1880d.  Coenurus  polytuberculosus  Megnin  1880d. 

1894.  Cysticercus  polytuberculosus  Megnin  [1880d]  of  Braun  1894a;  this  combination 

should  be  attributed  to  (Megnin  1880d)  Braun  1894a. 
1903.  Coenurus  tuberculosus  Megnin  of  Kunsemuller  1903a;  this  combination  should 

be  attributed  to  Kunsemuller  1903a. 

MULTICEPS  SPALACIS. 
HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 

Note  has  already  been  made  of  Diesing's  (1850a)  coenurus  "ex 
Ipalacis  capensis,"  tentatively  considered  as  Coznurus  cerebralis  by 
Diesing.  In  a  later  article  Diesing  (1864a)  corrected  the  host 
name  to  Spalax  capensis  and  gave  a  general  description,  of  which 
the  only  fact  of  interest  is  the  occurrence  of  a  single  circlet  of  hooks. 
Such  a  feature  was  mentioned  by  Lindemann  (1867a)  as  occurring 
in  his  Coenurus  lowzowi  and  was  found  once  by  Pagenstecher  (1877a) 
in  his  M.  serialis  from  Myopotamus  coypus.  The  location  of  the 
parasite  is  not  given,  nor  are  there  any  other  data  of  value  in  species 
determination,  so  in  the  absence  of  other  similar  records  from  this 
host  the  species  is  retained  on  Diesing's  determination  and  under 
the  name  given  by  Moniez  (18SOa). 

A  discussion  as  to  the  probable  host  has  already  been  given  on  p.  40. 

SYNONYMY. 

Species  MULTICEPS  SPALACIS  (Moniez  i88oa)  Hall  igictf. 

1850.  Ccenurus  Diesing  1850a. 

1878.  Coenurus  spec.?  of  von  Linstow  1878a. 

1880.  Coenurus  spalacis  Moniez  1880a. 

1902.  Coenurus  spalacis  Dies,  of  von  Linstow  1902q;  this  combination  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  Moniez  1880a, 


68  THE   GID   PARASITE   AND   ALLIED   SPECIES. 

CYSTICEBCTJS  BOTRYOIDES  (species  inquierenda). 
HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 

Boettcher  (1862a),  according  to  Braun  (1894a),  describes  a  Oysticer- 
cus  botryoides  from  the  back  muscles  of  a  rabbit.  The  form  is  suid 
to  apparently  arise  by  budding  from  a  parent  vesicle.  It  has  been 
considered  as  Canurus  serialis  by  Railliet  (1882a).  Reinitz  (1885a) 
does  not  consider  it  as  M.  serialis,  owing  to  differences  in  macro- 
scopic appearance  and  hook  form.  Von  Linstow  (1878a)  lists  it  as 
"  C&nurus  spec.1  (Cwnurus  cerebralis  Rud.  ?)."  Leuckart  (1865a) 
says  that  since  the  size,  form,  and  number  of  the  hooks  agree  with 
those  of  Oanurus  [species  not  specified]  there  are  no  grounds  for 
making  a  new  species.  Braun  (1897a)  doubts  whether  this  was  a 
coenurus  at  all,  and  considers  it  a  budding  cysticercus,  and  Kunse- 
muller  (1903a)  agrees  with  Braun.  Inasmuch  as  the  original  de- 
scription is  not  available,  and  the  authorities  cited  disagree  as  to  the 
identity  and  even  as  to  the  generic  position  of  this  form,  it  has  been 
retained  here  under  the  original  name  as  a  species  inquierenda. 

SYNONYMY. 

Species  CYSTICERCUS  BOTRYOIDES  Boettcher  i86aa. 

1862.  Cysticercus  botryoides  Boettcher  1862a;  not  available;  cited  from  Braun  1894a. 
1889.  Cysticercus  botryoides  Reinitz  of  von  Linstow  1889a;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  Boettcher  1862a. 

1889.  Ccenurus  spec.  Boettcher  of  von  Linstow  1889a. 
1896.  C[cenurus]  botryoides   Bottcher  of  Braun  1896d;  this  combination  should  be 

attributed  to  (Boettcher  1862a)  Braun  1896d. 

ACEPHALOCYSTIS  OVIS  TRAGELAPHI  (species  inquierenda). 
HISTORICAL    SKETCH. 

Cobbold  (1861e),  in  a  list  of  entozoa,  \istsAcephalocystisovistrage- 
laphiirom  Ovis  tragelaphus,  with  the  following  note:  "A  solitary 
specimen  filled  with  clear  serous  fluid.  Probably  an  aborted  Crenurus. 
Spherical;  1  inch  in  diameter." 

In  the  absence  of  any  morphological  characteristics  which  could 
possibly  relate  this  specimen  to  the  genus  Multiceps,  and  with  no 
statement  as  to  the  location  on  which  to  base  even  a  surmise  as  to 
the  likelihood  of  its  being  a  coenurus,  it  would  be  useless  to  pass  judg- 
ment on  this  specimen. 

SYNONYMY. 

ACEPHALOCYSTIS  OVIS  TRAGELAPHI  Cobbold  i86ie. 

1861.  Acephalocystis  tragelaphi  Cobbold  1861e. 

o 


